[UO Herald] Producer's Update - 8/13/10

[RaDian FlGith]

Well you re just completely wrong, probably because you were not a witness of that era.

Whatever you posted, which I didn't bother to read, is completely invalidated by your first sentence.

October.
23.
1997.

Original account.

I was a customer when the shards were crashing every day.
I was a customer when you couldn't walk more than two steps at a time if you were outside of the Britain subserver.
I was a customer when they mirrored Felucca into Trammel, and watched the player communities die overnight as they made the exodus to Trammel and couldn't reform the same communities because of open house placement.
I was a customer when they added slayer weapons.
I was a customer when they launched AoS.
And 3D.
And T2A.
I was a customer when advanced alchemy and necromancy were on the test shard. The first time.
I was a customer when they explained that the reason for the wide open spaces in T2A was because they intended it to be a frontier community where players put houses and helped each other out -- it's also why there aren't wandering healers out there.

I could go on for ages.

But whatever your beliefs are, you can rest assured that my original gaming experience was one where free-for-all PvP was the ruleset, and you can go dig out whatever history books you like to discover that I was the GM of Great Lakes' largest guild pre-Trammel, and that we were an anti-PK guild that made it our habit to help keep the dungeons and overworld safe for other players.

Most of my guild didn't shed a tear as they left for Trammel either.

 

[Restroom Cowboy]

Out of curiosity...are there any fixes on the horizon for the ctrl shift client crash that came about with the arrival of the new client?

Any time there are more than 10 people on screen and this is used at an event...you have an exponential chance of getting tossed out of the client. With 50+ people on screen and dying...the chances of crash are near 100% if you need to grab a bar or are trying to loot.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Out of curiosity...are there any fixes on the horizon for the ctrl shift client crash that came about with the arrival of the new client?

Any time there are more than 10 people on screen and this is used at an event...you have an exponential chance of getting tossed out of the client. With 50+ people on screen and dying...the chances of crash are near 100% if you need to grab a bar or are trying to loot.

Is that happening to you in the EC or the CC (or both)?

I've had some strange crashes in the CC, but they're usually when I'm alone in my house opening chests -- and I'm almost certain it's got something to do with UOAssist (though, obviously, I can't be certain). At events, with tons of people and creatures on screen, handles and all-names both seem to work okay without crashing me (even with nova blast going off).

So just curious which client it is -- maybe we can help them nail this down, because I'm sure that's got to be as annoying as hell.

 

[HD2300]

This went on for months as players who didn't enjoy PvP complained and complained on the forums about how they couldn't step outside the cities without getting ganked. So EA listened, and they created the first shard: Trammel, where there was no PvP. The original, PvP-enabled world [Fel] became a ghost town overnight;

The Infamous Brad - Five Years, and So Much Wasted: Neocron

cliff-- PvP in UO may have been popular with some, but it turned others off. During SWG beta, when people were pushing the devs to do more PvP, Raph Koster (creative director for both UO and SWG) said that UO lost "six digits" worth of subscribers because of ganking.... That's a significant percentage of their playerbase.

Multiverse Network :: View topic - Offline mode

Where does the 90-95% come from?? Pretty much that is the accepted number. Take your pick...
General: Legendary Failures of Legend, Part One - News Discussion - General Discussion - MMORPG.com Forums
VN Boards - UOVault Poll: PvP - How often do you participate in PvP fighting?
Tobold's MMORPG Blog: Ultima Online: Kingdom Reborn
Tobold's MMORPG Blog: Ultima Online Pre-Trammel
I get so frustrated by people complaining about Trammel - Britannia Tavern (General) - Ultima Online - MMORPG.com Forums

Back on point. So what makes more sense? Create an expansion that caters to the 90-95% or one that caters to the 5-10%? That is why EA has never built a Classic shard and will never build one, because not only will Siege die, but so will UO when 10,000s of the 90-95% leave when there is a delay in an expansion that caters to them.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

"If there is so much interest in the classic ruleset, why is it that most emulator servers emulate the post-AoS ruleset?"

I'd really like to know the answers to the question above.

For accuracy...there are really only 2 server emulators out there, and neither one specifically emulates any era. The creators of the "free shards" that run on the emulators decide which era to emulate.

I have no numbers in front of me that indicate which era which free shards emulate, and I am pretty sure you don't either.

I would hazard a guess that if there are more post-AOS free shards, it stems mostly from the fact that creating a post-AOS shard would be a lot easier than modifying down to only include pre-AOS content. I have never ran a free shard, besides just for fun, so I have no idea what the intentions or limitations that most free shard admins face are.

I do know this much however, the most populated free shards (and I will not name them here) are T2A era servers. So while it is possible that more post-AOS shards are out there, the ones that draw the most players are not only pre-AOS, but also pre-Trammel. If you disagree with this, I encourage you to do some research, because I sure as heck am not wasting my time with it.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Since you are so dead set against a Classic Shard RaDian, if you could, please share with us what steps you believe the devs could take to expand the playerbase. Keep in mind, UO is currently losing subscribers every month...slowly, the game is dying (as they all do eventually). So, what can they do to either bring in new players, or bring back old ones??

If you have the magic answer that Cal is looking for, I am certain he would be very happy to hear it...

 

[HD2300]

The 2 most popular are a t2a accurate and t2a + extras shard. The 3rd most popular is a SE/ML shard.

The t2a is recently now peaking at ~560 players a day. Allows 3 concurrent accounts.
The t2a + extras has ~720 players now. Allows 4 concurrent accounts.

In reality it is not as many what is has been hyped to be.

So...
1. If you take into account the concurrent accounts it even less.
2. How many would be idiotic enough to go from FREE to paying a monthly fee?

Once it goes live, all it takes is someone dropping books or spamming, 'go to xyz and play for FREE' and the EA Classic shard is dead.

 

[HD2300]

if you could, please share with us what steps you believe the devs could take to expand the playerbase.

Ideas that have been suggested by other people better than a Classic Shard:
1. F2P - Just make the trial accounts indefinite (free) or put in more restrictions.
2. Return to Brit - 1 Free month for former players. Costs EA $100 to do a mass email. Will get more returning players than a Classic Shard.
3. Tram super shards - appeal for former PvEers (90-95% of former players). Would take 1/12th or even less time/cost to setup than a Classic Shard.
4. Fel super shards - Would take 1/12th or even less time/cost to setup than a Classic Shard
5. Release boxed expansion in stores that appeals to all players both PvEers and PvPers.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Since you are so dead set against a Classic Shard RaDian, if you could, please share with us what steps you believe the devs could take to expand the playerbase. Keep in mind, UO is currently losing subscribers every month...slowly, the game is dying (as they all do eventually). So, what can they do to either bring in new players, or bring back old ones??

As I've said I don't even know how many times before, it's not that I'm against a Classic Shard, I'm against them doing one right now. As I've stated repeatedly, they can't even show the proper support for the alternate ruleset servers that already exist. You know, the Siege Perilous ruleset.

As to how they could expand the playerbase, it comes down to this:

1) Provide a modern client that doesn't look like its using graphics that would have looked bad in 2000. Don't try to emulate WoW with your interface, instead, put in a proper New Player Tutorial/Experience that not only shows you how to play, but explains some of the decisions you're going to have to make.

It should be noted that SWG went from sandbox to leveler for this very reason: Unless you explain to players the effects of making certain skill decisions, they're going to be confused. UO has a POWERFUL skill-based system, but they need to explain it to new players so it doesn't drive them away. Levelers are simpler in this manner... and no, I don't want to see UO ever go leveler.

2) Unify the interface. What I mean by this is go through it and take care of all of the strange abstractions of the interface that cause dichotomous situations. For instance, multiple quest systems -- unify them under one quest system. Make sure all menus share a similar interface style. Add pictures to things that don't have pictures. Add flavor text to help people learn how to use them. So on and so forth.

3) Once (1) and (2) are complete, market the game.

A Classic Shard is a short term, short longevity solution to an issue.

Oh, and once 1 and 2 are done, you know, they might be able to afford more developers to give not only Siege Perilous a fair shake, they could also provide funding for the Classic Shard ruleset.

Don't misunderstand my arguments as "I hate the classic era," or "EA should never consider one." My point is plain and simple... they cannot develop one at this stage of the game without adversely affecting the other things that they should be paying MUCH MUCH MUCH more attention to that will enable the long-term survivability of the game.

If you have the magic answer that Cal is looking for, I am certain he would be very happy to hear it...

Cal might not like the magic answer, but here it is:

Set quality standards, and refuse to release before those standards are met.

Stop accepting sub-par artwork for the game.

Stop trying to turn the game into something it's not.

Analyze what makes UO UNIQUE to the MMO market and CAPITALIZE ON THAT. UO's not dead. It shouldn't even be dieing. But EA has, for far too long, made money off of a game that it still has understood why it is a success.

Figure out why it IS a success and bolster that.

(By the way, many of us can tell you it's exactly that it's a sandbox with customization that goes beyond a great many online games out there, and that allows you to literally "own" your own chunk of the game world.)

As for other issues, they can be tackled later... the three I listed are the most important at the moment, and the way to accomplish them is by following the easy steps above.

 

[Evlar]

RaDian FlGith - If only some, if not all of those principals had been followed years ago, we probably wouldn't find ourselves in the situation we've arrived at now. No, the game isn't dead and there's still gas in the tank, so long as careful and well planned choices are made.

Stop trying to turn the game into something it's not.

There's really a great many differences of opinion as to what UO is about. The game offers such a large scope of activities and possibilities, there will always be aspects some prefer over others. It's different things to different people. It's also what stands the game out against the "levellers" which for me, hold no interest.

I think for me it's mainly the hindsight disappointment that other options were apparently on the table, when major changes were made. Much of what I found unique about UO has fallen by the wayside.

Something that I've also never been keen on, is pushing major expansions out the door, especially when they're incomplete or many "features" don't work properly. If expansions have been the key way to bring new or returning players to UO, then stuff needs to be right in order to keep them playing.

I would much rather have seen smaller "bite-size" expansions, perhaps over a shorter period than seems to be the "norm". Not only should they be more manageable in terms of "finished product", but they provide something "new" on a regular basis, for the type of player that needs encouraging to stay.

Yes, of course I would like to see a classic option, but as I've said before, not at the expense of everything else.

1) Provide a modern client that doesn't look like its using graphics that would have looked bad in 2000. Don't try to emulate WoW with your interface, instead, put in a proper New Player Tutorial/Experience that not only shows you how to play, but explains some of the decisions you're going to have to make.

I don't know if you saw anything about the IRIS project?

YouTube - Iris2 2008 - Ultima Online - 3D-Client
YouTube - Iris2 - Ultima Online - 3D-Client
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYv3bgQ6sss&feature=related
Iris2

Makes for interesting viewing at the very least. Still basic compared to some of the more graphically intense games out there now, but still retains much of the "charm" of UO. I'd call that a happy medium.

What it does show, is what a small group of people have been able to achieve in their own time. They weren't paid to produce this. There would be no shame at all if EA/BioWare-Mythic were to offer to fund or take over this project.

Tally something like this with the interface improvements you suggest and I think we have a winning combination. It's often easy to forget what the experience is like for a new or returning player.

Of course, there's gameplay elements particular groups have a preference for within UO, but as you say, there's much to do and much to achieve. Hopefully all of those goals can be achieved, providing enjoyable gaming to suit every preference, for years to come.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

There's really a great many differences of opinion as to what UO is about. The game offers such a large scope of activities and possibilities, there will always be aspects some prefer over others. It's different things to different people. It's also what stands the game out against the "levellers" which for me, hold no interest.

Oh, don't get me wrong... the variety that is UO is its strength. Gardening isn't going to interest a PvPer necessarily, PvM may not be a crafter's cup of tea, et cetera.

What I mean more by not trying to turn the game into something it isn't is more the idea that in order for UO to be successful that it has to emulate other successful MMOs. It doesn't, and in fact, trying to do so in many cases is a huge mistake that detracts from the originality of UO.

Take the containers and interfaces of UO for example. Initially the game's interface was very much in the style and theme of the rest of the game. Much of that has been lost over the years because of looking for simplistic ways of updating the interface. I think much of the interface could have been updated to work with localization without losing some of what made it special. Also, while I completely agree crafting menus needed to be updated, they could have been done in a way that didn't rob them of a UO style.

Containers, while I understand the want and desire for something bigger, are actually -- in the 2D client -- part of the immersion of the game. Slotted containers break that immersion and start to turn UO's interface into every other game's interface. Now, I will say I think that there's a benefit to giving people interface choices so that I can keep immersion and you (generic, not you you) can keep slotted... but they need to do it in an efficient, effective manner that, you know, actually works.

Something that I've also never been keen on, is pushing major expansions out the door, especially when they're incomplete or many "features" don't work properly. If expansions have been the key way to bring new or returning players to UO, then stuff needs to be right in order to keep them playing.

I would much rather have seen smaller "bite-size" expansions, perhaps over a shorter period than seems to be the "norm". Not only should they be more manageable in terms of "finished product", but they provide something "new" on a regular basis, for the type of player that needs encouraging to stay.

I completely agree with you... expansions should be finished before they're ready to push out the door. I also think that they should take the time to "get it right" rather than trying to meet some artificial deadline. Yeah, they have to make tough decisions to get stuff out the door to avoid the "we'll work on this forever" stuff, but yeah, far too many expansions have hit the ground with stuff incomplete, and that's really not acceptable.

Yes, of course I would like to see a classic option, but as I've said before, not at the expense of everything else.

Yeah... I completely agree here. My biggest concern remains their overall ability to do it given the current scope and context of what needs to happen to UO, not that I think offering the option is overall a bad thing (I will qualify this by saying they should also really determine if it's a viable market too... but hopefully they would appropriately research that before any decision is made.

I don't know if you saw anything about the IRIS project?

YouTube - Iris2 2008 - Ultima Online - 3D-Client
YouTube - Iris2 - Ultima Online - 3D-Client
YouTube - Ultima Online - Iris2 - Britannia in 3D
Iris2

Makes for interesting viewing at the very least. Still basic compared to some of the more graphically intense games out there now, but still retains much of the "charm" of UO. I'd call that a happy medium.

What it does show, is what a small group of people have been able to achieve in their own time. They weren't paid to produce this. There would be no shame at all if EA/BioWare-Mythic were to offer to fund or take over this project.

Tally something like this with the interface improvements you suggest and I think we have a winning combination. It's often easy to forget what the experience is like for a new or returning player.

You know, while Ultima IX wasn't exactly the most compelling of the Ultima series, when I first stepped foot in that world, I wanted so much to see UO one day grow into a fully 3D game (and what's sort of sad is that there's absolutely no technical reason that it couldn't).

I won't say that I think the IRIS graphics are the standard I'd set, but they could be a low-end standard that would allow the game to play on lower-end systems. But, I definitely agree with the gist of your thoughts.

Of course, there's gameplay elements particular groups have a preference for within UO, but as you say, there's much to do and much to achieve. Hopefully all of those goals can be achieved, providing enjoyable gaming to suit every preference, for years to come.

Yeah... and I completely understand that at times it must be a nightmare for the DevTeam to decide just what it is that's going to be worked on next -- particularly in the scope of a small team. But I think if they could spend the money appropriately (let's be honest, seeing huge parts of KR scrapped is a sign of money not well spent), and get this poor old game up to speed, they could actually reintroduce it as a bold component to the modern market. I mean, let's be honest, there really aren't any sandbox games out there that are like UO.

It's sad to see this game not grow to its potential.

 

[Aragon100]

Stop trying to turn the game into something it's not.

Analyze what makes UO UNIQUE to the MMO market and CAPITALIZE ON THAT.

What made UO unique for many old felucca veterans like me was it's PvP and the complete freedom only a good sandbox could deliver. The community was also better then any i met afterwards.

PvP was all about the individual player skill and had very little with items to do. There was full loot and consequences, a risk vs reward MMO in it's best form.

Crafters were appreciated cause they created the best weapons and armor. Thiefs had their role to play. Tamers lived in a harder more unforgiven world and when their pet died it really died.

PK:s were few but usually very skilled as the consequences for failure was very harsh.

If you compare above old classic game with the game we have today i can safely say that there is very few resemblences.

Most of the old players that started to play the game -97 left the game after AoS and that is not what i would call a good analyze of what made UO unique.

It was a shocking, complete change of the game where the old felucca veterans that supported the game for many years were left out in the cold. Their beloved game was gone and so was their subscriptions.

Developers took a wrong turn with AoS and it would be awsome if they accepted a classic shard to be made and give us old felucca lovers a chance to show them how many we are and help them with our subscriptions in the future.

Most of my guild didn't shed a tear as they left for Trammel either.

I think that statement says alot about what type of gameplay your guild prefered. Trammel was never a choice for the old school PvP oriented Felucca guilds. And those guilds were a big chunk of the overall UO subscribers. Those guilds left UO after AoS to never come back and i dont think my guild ever entered trammel since it came out. But i have to say that trammel never bothered me as much as AoS did. AoS was the last and final nail's into the felluca coffin and completely changed the direction of the game.

If the analyze were that safe, PvE oriented MMO gaming was the only future for UO then they made the right choice with AoS. But the subscription numbers tells us another truth. Destroying old UO was a huge miscalculation and i wonder if developers themself really knew what type of game UO was for the many PvP oriented players when they introduced AoS?

 

[RaDian FlGith]

What made UO unique for many old felucca veterans like me was it's PvP and the complete freedom only a good sandbox could deliver. The community was also better then any i seen afterwards.

You do understand that what you're speaking of was the complete freedom to enforce your style of gameplay onto others. UO started as a social experiment in many aspects, and as time grew, the developers realized that it was a failure in that aspect.

PvP was all about the individual player skill and had very little with items to do. There was full loot and consequences, a risk vs reward MMO in it's best form.

Okay, first off, on Great Lakes, I can assure you many of us PvPers were aware of the need for some of the more effective PKs to boost their advantage using particular external programs that, yes, were around waaaaay back then. Secondly, you might call it "risk vs reward," but when it's the PvMers who were putting in all the risk and the PKers who were reaping all of the reward, you can certainly see why it ended up going the way that it did.

Crafters were appreciated cause they created the best weapons and armor. Thiefs had their role to play. Tamers lived in a harder more unforgiven world and when their pet died it really died.

Crafting wasn't killed by the fact that they switched to AoS-style resists or that suddenly they were less needed. Crafting was killed first off by in-game vendors -- it meant that people who would actually stand around and sell their wares now had to compete with someone who left them on a vendor, and if you didn't price-check your own stuff, you suffered the fate of being the wrong price. This led to the second contributing factor, macroers who were pulling up tons of resources. When you had to stand around and sell your stuff, you could only sell what you had while you were standing there, so even if you had tons of resources at home, you clearly couldn't be on 24/7 selling your wares. Finally, crafting suffered at the hands of "just about everyone has a crafter." Sure, there are rare exceptions, and new things like imbuing take awhile to trickle down, but most people have a smith and a tailor, probably a tinker, and likely a carpenter... they usually tend to be a mule character. Again, I won't say all have them, but really, when I can make the stuff myself, why would I buy yours?

Thieves... were as bad as PKs... In fact, many of them were working in teams.

And tamers pets dieing permanently... well, hey, you might call that a rougher world. I call that a colossal waste of time training pet skills.

PK:s were few but usually very skilled as the consequences for failure was very harsh.

I don't know what shard you played on, but here on Great Lakes the word "few" didn't become applicable until after Trammel.

If you compare above old classic game with the game we have today i can safely say that there is very few resemblences.

And yet that's only a minor featureset that still exists in the game. And in fact, people who enjoy PvP still find a way to PvP in UO. It's the PKers who are, by and large, left out in the cold. Believe me, a Classic Shard isn't going to bring back a steady supply of victims.

Most of the old players that started to play the game -97 left the game after AoS and that is not what i would call a good analyze of what made UO unique.

Which is funny because aside from the changing of mechanics in weaponry and armor, all of the things that you mention were long dead long before the Age of Shadows hit. So really, how is it that Age of Shadows destroyed the "uniqueness" of UO. I mean, truly, let's be honest here: Two primary things changed with Age of Shadows. Item insurance was introduced (and really, if you're in it for the love of PvP, why isn't a handful of gold enough... couldn't you just take that and spend it on stuff?), and the way armor and weapons worked changed some (I say "some" because it added a new, necessary dynamic to the game to keep it interesting... it's not difficult to figure out, and while I agree -- and always have -- that it could have been introduced better, it certainly didn't destroy UO).

I mean, come on, the PKs that ran around with their ill-gotten exceedingly accurate indestructible long swords of vanquishing weren't playing an item-based game?

Really?

It was a shocking, complete change of the game where the old felucca veterans that supported the game for many years were left out in the cold. Their beloved game was gone and so was their subscriptions.

Err... right... we're still discussing Age of Shadows, right? Or are we talking about when most of these veterans lost their prey to Renaissance? Or when they were denied access to Ilshenar? Seriously? The thing that was the "final straw" for "so many" Feluccan "veterans" was the change in armor statistics? Seriously? I mean, faction folk had been playing for years without getting anything serious from loot other than some potions, some bandages, and some GM made armor anyway. So "oh noes, I can't loot the armor anymore!" made a vast change that just made them all leave?

Or is it more true to say that well before Age of Shadows these "veterans" had already departed the game?

Age of Shadows did not destroy the Feluccan game. I mean, really, they put in power scrolls and champ spawns in, and double resources in Felucca, and all kinds of things prior to Age of Shadows to help encourage people to play more in Felucca. I'm sure they did those things because there was already a thriving population in Felucca that, you know, didn't really need any help. And, of course, in reverse irony, it should be noted how many times it's acknowledged that double resources and power scrolls did basically nothing to draw new people in, it just gave the existing Feluccans more of condensed area to fight in. Which, as typical Feluccan "veterans" did, they found a way to cheat at through ghost cams and all kinds of silliness.

Developers took a wrong turn with AoS and it would be awsome if they accepted that and gave us old felucca lovers a chance to show them how many we are and help them with our subscriptions in the future.

Except, of course, that they didn't make a wrong turn.

I think that statement says alot about what type of gameplay your guild prefered. Trammel was never a choice for the old school PvP oriented Felucca guilds. Dont think my guild ever entered trammel since it came out. But i have to say that trammel never bothered me as much as AoS did. AoS was the last nail's into the felluca coffin and completely changed the direction of the game.

The statement says a lot about what a vast majority of playerbase in Ultima Online preferred. What I think you don't seem to understand is that my guild stepped up to the front lines to try to make it so that people who wanted to play something other than "your" game had an opportunity to do so. Of course, the truth of the matter was, most nights we were in constant conflict with one PK guild or another, which was fine, because while they were focused on us, they were seldom focused elsewhere.

Now, I will give a prologue to all of this that is simple and upfront: I recognize that there are people who like the PvP risk that exists in games. Hell, I play on a PvP server on WoW SPECIFICALLY because I like the added challenge. I also think that WoW's PvP system is far more interesting than UO's rather limited and cheat-infested offering at present.

However, I will also say that anyone who truly was interested in the constant PvP aspect of UO would be playing on Siege Perilous. I mean, items are still lootable. They're uninsurable -- remember, Siege doesn't have insurance. In fact, the only real difference between "classic" UO and Siege Perilous is the AoS item properties, and trust me, with the constant push and pull of losing this or that, it's not as huge an issue as you would make it out to be.

But then, Siege Perilous doesn't provide victims, it provides challenges.

Me, I enjoyed the early days of UO. My rose-colored glasses were shattered long ago, and I remember the ups and downs of that era. I'd never go back to it myself, but if they choose to open a server that presents it, so be it. They should not do so at the detriment of the rest of the game, however.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Wow...where to start?

As I've said I don't even know how many times before, it's not that I'm against a Classic Shard, I'm against them doing one right now

The idea behind doing a Classic Shard 'right now' is to bring in an influx of capital. Creating a shard is going to cost infinitely less than the alternatives you are suggesting...but let's look into what you are saying.

As I've stated repeatedly, they can't even show the proper support for the alternate ruleset servers that already exist. You know, the Siege Perilous ruleset.

And as I have stated repeatedly, Siege has nothing to do with a Classic Shard. Siege was doing just fine until AOS was introduced to it, and since then, it has been drying up. AOS doesn't work with the open PVP model. Too much emphasis is placed on items...both in combat, and net worth of the player. On EasyMode, err, Trammel shards...AOS sort of works because without open PvP, the only real objective left in the game is hoarding things. Insurance, coupled with ridiculously overpriced artifacts and such cater specifically to the hoarder mentality.

1) Provide a modern client that doesn't look like its using graphics that would have looked bad in 2000. Don't try to emulate WoW with your interface, instead, put in a proper New Player Tutorial/Experience that not only shows you how to play, but explains some of the decisions you're going to have to make.

I agree with part of this. A modern client that retains the Ultima look, but uses modern technology would be the right way to go.

However, I seriously doubt that Electronic Arts is going to invest the resources necessary to develop this. You are talking about a full blown sequel here if you really get right down to it. Do you think that a new client that would actually be competetive can function properly on the existing servers? Not likely. the entire framework of the game would need to be re-engineered.

In the meantime, every player that enjoys the Classic Client is going to pack up their arties and rares, pitch them in the nearest trash bin, log out, cancel their accounts, and never come back. And if you haven't checked lately, that's roughly 60-70% of all current paying subscriptions.

So let's review:

You want the devs to embark on a project that is going to...

a) Cost monumentally more than a Classic Shard
b) Replace the client that 60-70% of all the players use
c) Be developed by a skeleton crew..on the cheap (or as cheaply as possible)

That's the cold reality of the situation. EA is not going to green light something that epic for a game that they were not less than 2 years ago considering pulling the pull on entirely. No way.

It should be noted that SWG went from sandbox to leveler for this very reason: Unless you explain to players the effects of making certain skill decisions, they're going to be confused. UO has a POWERFUL skill-based system, but they need to explain it to new players so it doesn't drive them away. Levelers are simpler in this manner... and no, I don't want to see UO ever go leveler.

Well, that's essentially what you have in UO now...only without actual levels.

When UO started out, it was truly open. You could be a sword fighting, mace fighting, animal taming, tailor that also knows a little magic. Now, you are more or less forced into specific templates thanks to AOS and the ever escalating power of the monsters introduced with each expansion. Sure, you can be all of those things now, but you will continually have your butt handed to you in the "in" areas by the one-hit kill wonders that can only be defeated using the latest and greatest from...you guessed it...the newest expansion they are selling.

2) Unify the interface. What I mean by this is go through it and take care of all of the strange abstractions of the interface that cause dichotomous situations. For instance, multiple quest systems -- unify them under one quest system. Make sure all menus share a similar interface style. Add pictures to things that don't have pictures. Add flavor text to help people learn how to use them. So on and so forth.

I have no issue with any of that...but I don't see how that is going to bring back anyone, or even attract any new players. It will cater to the existing playerbase just fine...which is shrinking daily.

3) Once (1) and (2) are complete, market the game.

Honestly, if they did 1 and 2 on your list, there would no longer be a game left to market.

A Classic Shard is a short term, short longevity solution to an issue.

Well look who finally caught up!!!

A Classic Shard is not meant to "save UO"...its meant to introduce new revenue so that more epic projects...like the ones you describe, or even better...a real sequel can be developed.

Oh, and once 1 and 2 are done, you know, they might be able to afford more developers to give not only Siege Perilous a fair shake, they could also provide funding for the Classic Shard ruleset.

So you are suggesting spending huge amounts of money to create something that may or may not succeed (sorry, my faith in new clients for UO is at an all time low after the THIRD failed replacement in a row) so that later, you might possibly spend considerably less on something that may or may not succeed??

Don't misunderstand my arguments as "I hate the classic era," or "EA should never consider one." My point is plain and simple... they cannot develop one at this stage of the game without adversely affecting the other things that they should be paying MUCH MUCH MUCH more attention to that will enable the long-term survivability of the game.

I think you underestimate the precarious financial situation that UO is currently in. If it were not for the efforts of Mark Jacobs, UO would be a memory. This game is running on fumes...and you want to drop in a brand new turbo charged V-12 engine and a video entertainment system. rolleyes:

Set quality standards, and refuse to release before those standards are met.

I agree...but your pal HD2300 says that "tens of thousands" of players are going to immediately quit if they do not get regular development releases.

Which is it? Your arguments against a Classic Shard seem to run exactly counter to his.

Stop accepting sub-par artwork for the game.

Well, you certainly are right there. Everything released in the 3 failed clients that was not lifted from 2d looks like dog poo (except the spell effects)

Stop trying to turn the game into something it's not.

Too late...that started in 2000 with UO:R, and then was made complete in 2003 with AOS. They have gone so far from what this game actually started out as that most current players have no idea what the real identity of this game actually is.

Analyze what makes UO UNIQUE to the MMO market and CAPITALIZE ON THAT. UO's not dead. It shouldn't even be dieing. But EA has, for far too long, made money off of a game that it still has understood why it is a success.

Figure out why it IS a success and bolster that.

And you say that Classic Shard supporters can't decide what Classic means???

Good luck with that pal.

(By the way, many of us can tell you it's exactly that it's a sandbox with customization that goes beyond a great many online games out there, and that allows you to literally "own" your own chunk of the game world.)

It used to be.

As for other issues, they can be tackled later... the three I listed are the most important at the moment, and the way to accomplish them is by following the easy steps above.

Did you say "easy"???

So let me get this straight...

You believe that creating an entirely new client, with all new artwork...EVERY SINGLE ASSET (over 10,000 unique pieces of art), new server code, new server framework, new server hardware...then, marketing the game as if it were new, meeting deadlines, lauch dates, finding ways to not lose existing players so that your revenue stream doesn't dimminish...all on a skeleton budget...will be easy???




I think you need a healthy dose of reality RaDian. The things you are talking about, for a 13 year old game, are pie in the sky. With SWOR coming out, and so much competion on the market, EA would be foolish to commit that kind of development to UO at this point. I'd love to see it happen, but I think I am just going to go back to asking for a Classic Shard...that might actually happen in my lifetime.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

What I think you don't seem to understand is that my guild stepped up to the front lines to try to make it so that people who wanted to play something other than "your" game had an opportunity to do so. Of course, the truth of the matter was, most nights we were in constant conflict with one PK guild or another, which was fine, because while they were focused on us, they were seldom focused elsewhere.

My guild on Atlantic (PoV) did the exact same thing. The difference is, that WAS the game for most of us. We enjoyed the social impact that protecting areas against PKs had on the game. It wasn't so much about enjoying the fight, it was the fact that what we did actually mattered.

Many of my guild abandoned Fel, or at least the ones that joined up simply for protection did, and rest...

...well, they got bored and left Sosaria...most of them forever.

You are going on about someone enforcing "their playstyle" on someone else...but here is a news flash...

...it was the playstyle because that was what the game was designed to be. Ultima Online was never meant to be a safe...and unrealistic...world where one player could not attack another. That came as a result of the developers of that time not taking the steps need to balance the original concept.

However, I will also say that anyone who truly was interested in the constant PvP aspect of UO would be playing on Siege Perilous. I mean, items are still lootable. They're uninsurable -- remember, Siege doesn't have insurance. In fact, the only real difference between "classic" UO and Siege Perilous is the AoS item properties, and trust me, with the constant push and pull of losing this or that, it's not as huge an issue as you would make it out to be.

Have you ever actually played Siege???

Siege was different before there was Trammel...Siege was even more different after...and even moreso after AoS.

Siege has its own set of issues...and the community there is completely different than the Classic Shard community. Certainly, some Siege players would play Classic, but stop spreading the lie that Siege is the same as a Classic Shard.

I guess, to a hardcore Trammie, Siege may seem like Classic because they are both far more difficult than current UO, but beyond open PvP, there is very little similarity between the two any more.

Me, I enjoyed the early days of UO. My rose-colored glasses were shattered long ago, and I remember the ups and downs of that era. I'd never go back to it myself, but if they choose to open a server that presents it, so be it. They should not do so at the detriment of the rest of the game, however.

No one is asking you to go back. If a Classic Shard did open, the last thing we would need is someone that would constantly complain about being PKed.

 

[HD2300]

if you could, please share with us what steps you believe the devs could take to expand the playerbase.

Ideas that have been suggested by other people better than a Classic Shard:
1. F2P - Just make the trial accounts indefinite (free) or put in more restrictions.
2. Return to Brit - 1 Free month for former players. Costs EA $100 to do a mass email. Will get more returning players than a Classic Shard.
3. Tram super shards - appeal for former PvEers (90-95% of former players). Would take 1/12th or even less time/cost to setup than a Classic Shard.
4. Fel super shards - Would take 1/12th or even less time/cost to setup than a Classic Shard
5. Release boxed expansion in stores that appeals to all players both PvEers and PvPers.

6. Release expansions more frequently (Evlar)
7. Real 3D client. WAR and DoAC use the same game engine as the EC. Reuse graphic assets and code from WAR or DoAC.
8. New shard no transfers 1/20th cost of Classic

For the record Siege = Classic Shard + Expansions

Quote from Classic era... "I never went out without a power/vanq sword and fort/invul platemail, allowing me to defeat ganks of 4+... that is completely impossible today (unless the 4 are total *******)"

Classic era had vanqishing and invul items which were uber items at the time. Because there wasnt insurance, even if people owned them, they didnt use them because they couldnt afford to lose them. Risk vs Reward. The same applies to all weapons/armor in Siege today. Siege = Classic Shard + Expansions

The Classic Shard would basically be Siege with a shard item wipe. Go through a couple of iterations of sheep and wolves and it would be a ghost town. I doubt it would even last 2 iterations anyway because everyone would move to the freeshards because they are exactly the same but FREE.

So what makes more sense? Create an expansion that caters to the 90-95% or one that caters to the 5-10%? That is why EA has never built a Classic shard and will never build one, because not only will Siege die, but so will UO when 10,000s of the 90-95% leave when there is a delay in an expansion that caters to them.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Wow...where to start?

Might I suggest: A daily dose of reality for yourself?

The idea behind doing a Classic Shard 'right now' is to bring in an influx of capital. Creating a shard is going to cost infinitely less than the alternatives you are suggesting...but let's look into what you are saying.

I'm so glad you're an expert on reverse engineering and on the costs both in terms of manpower and to the game itself in missed development opportunities that are spent focused on a Classic Shard, and somehow know for certain that this gamble is going to provide "an influx of capital" that is going to outweigh the developmental costs going into it.

And as I have stated repeatedly, Siege has nothing to do with a Classic Shard. Siege was doing just fine until AOS was introduced to it, and since then, it has been drying up. AOS doesn't work with the open PVP model. Too much emphasis is placed on items...both in combat, and net worth of the player. On EasyMode, err, Trammel shards...AOS sort of works because without open PvP, the only real objective left in the game is hoarding things. Insurance, coupled with ridiculously overpriced artifacts and such cater specifically to the hoarder mentality.

Just because you've repeatedly stated it doesn't make it true. I'm glad you think that AoS is the root of all things wrong with UO. It's not, but continue to preach it like it is.

I agree with part of this. A modern client that retains the Ultima look, but uses modern technology would be the right way to go.

However, I seriously doubt that Electronic Arts is going to invest the resources necessary to develop this. You are talking about a full blown sequel here if you really get right down to it. Do you think that a new client that would actually be competetive can function properly on the existing servers? Not likely. the entire framework of the game would need to be re-engineered.

Welcome to Client:Server:101. A client doesn't give two licks about what the server-end of things look like, and the server definitely could care less what graphical interface it's talking to. The Client/Server relationship is plainly and simply an exchange of DATA. Hell, they could take the WoW client and with some crafty engineering make it function with Ultima Online. I mean, you have noticed that they have provided three additional clients above and beyond the first, and made multiple changes to even that one, all without having to completely re-engineer the server, right?

It's a client. It can be changed. It can be completely replaced, and the server will still be able to understand the data being sent to it.

In the meantime, every player that enjoys the Classic Client is going to pack up their arties and rares, pitch them in the nearest trash bin, log out, cancel their accounts, and never come back. And if you haven't checked lately, that's roughly 60-70% of all current paying subscriptions.

Uh... really? So your contention is that if they managed to create an acceptable replacement client -- not talking what's been put out to date, but a truly modern UO client -- that 60-70% of the subscribers are going to quit?

I doubt it.

In fact, if they did the client correctly, they could still support one client and have it play in two modes... one that's extremely lightweight on what it needs to operate, and one that kicks into powerhouse mode.

So let's review:

You want the devs to embark on a project that is going to...

a) Cost monumentally more than a Classic Shard
b) Replace the client that 60-70% of all the players use
c) Be developed by a skeleton crew..on the cheap (or as cheaply as possible)

That's the cold reality of the situation. EA is not going to green light something that epic for a game that they were not less than 2 years ago considering pulling the pull on entirely. No way.

Uh... okay, really?

Allow me to assist you with understanding your entire position in defending your Classic Shard Mantra:

hyperbole

Well, that's essentially what you have in UO now...only without actual levels.

When UO started out, it was truly open. You could be a sword fighting, mace fighting, animal taming, tailor that also knows a little magic. Now, you are more or less forced into specific templates thanks to AOS and the ever escalating power of the monsters introduced with each expansion. Sure, you can be all of those things now, but you will continually have your butt handed to you in the "in" areas by the one-hit kill wonders that can only be defeated using the latest and greatest from...you guessed it...the newest expansion they are selling.

Because, you know, you never had to use a particular template to do anything prior to AoS. There were never any templates that were better than another. No one ever minimized or maximized their templates prior to AoS. That's all brand-new to UO since AoS.

Seriously, Morganna, did you ever play the game during this classic era that you speak of? Because your diatribes about how things went downhill since AoS don't ring at all true.

Hardcore gamers were min-maxing the day the game went live.

Monsters that have continually gotten harder? It's an MMO... some monsters are SUPPOSED to be difficult. You're referring to having to use specific templates in order to SOLO monsters. Well no kidding. Newsflash... that's not new either.

I mean, am I the only one who remembers when killing ancient wyrms wasn't exactly what anyone would call "easy?" Or that most people were only able to kill demons in groups, and even then, had to put bags of flour on the floor to trap them in place so that they couldn't get to you?

I mean, really, Morganna. You're basically making this stuff up now.

I have no issue with any of that...but I don't see how that is going to bring back anyone, or even attract any new players. It will cater to the existing playerbase just fine...which is shrinking daily.

Uh... if you streamline the interface it makes it so that new players don't get frustrated and confused by the game. You do recall that item one involved a new client with an in-game tutorial to help new players understand how to play the game, right? In addition, if there's a fresh, new client, it WILL attract players if it's done right.

I mean, just go searching these forums for what peoples' friends think of the game when they show them the 17-year-old graphics, or for that matter, the bad graphics of the "modern" client.

You don't seem to understand that in order for UO to survive for an indefinite period, it needs NEW blood, not a handful of PKs from 1997 who feel like the best way to play the game was when everyone could be crushed under their heels, right?

No... no, I forget who I'm talking to.

Honestly, if they did 1 and 2 on your list, there would no longer be a game left to market.

Again, hyperbole, and conjecture specifically designed to make it seem like Classic Shard is what they should be focusing on.

Well look who finally caught up!!!

A Classic Shard is not meant to "save UO"...its meant to introduce new revenue so that more epic projects...like the ones you describe, or even better...a real sequel can be developed.

Except that you have no proof or even solid ground that says "Hey, if we do a Classic Shard, they're going to get 10,000 new players who are willing to toss $12.99 at them per month, and they'll definitely stick around for the next six to twelve months." You have absolutely nothing to base your conjecture on other than your own opinion.

So you are suggesting spending huge amounts of money to create something that may or may not succeed (sorry, my faith in new clients for UO is at an all time low after the THIRD failed replacement in a row) so that later, you might possibly spend considerably less on something that may or may not succeed??

So instead, your idea is to spend money on a ruleset that we already know failed.

Well that's certainly some sound logic there.

I think you underestimate the precarious financial situation that UO is currently in. If it were not for the efforts of Mark Jacobs, UO would be a memory. This game is running on fumes...and you want to drop in a brand new turbo charged V-12 engine and a video entertainment system. rolleyes:

Mark Jacobs was a blowhard who is just slightly under Derek Smart in terms of "open mouth, insert foot" syndrome. If you believe that he's the savior of UO, I have a Classic Shard sitting in my living room that I'm willing to sell you for the low, low price of half a million dollars.

The game may be running on fumes, but you don't correct that by dumping a glass of vodka into the tank. You spend some money on gas, and you make repairs to the engine, and you get the thing up and running again. What you're suggesting is yanking out half of the sparkplugs, removing the tires, and then pushing the game downhill. I, at least, want to see them continue to develop the game in a fashion that will give it a sound future, not trying some chicken-wing voodoo hope and prayer that yanking features out of a ruleset and attempting to turn the clock back 12 years to a point where it may or may not be an acceptable ruleset to people who are currently playing their "flavor" of UO for free.

I agree...but your pal HD2300 says that "tens of thousands" of players are going to immediately quit if they do not get regular development releases.

Which is it? Your arguments against a Classic Shard seem to run exactly counter to his.

How exactly do you make this equation seem to make any sense at all in your head? Look, we can already see from history what happens to UO when they spend lots of time between expansions and fail to release new content.

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, and clearly you haven't, a CLASSIC shard is NOT NEW CONTENT. It is retrograding the existing game. They CANNOT just reroll out pub 16, because, you know, IT NO LONGER EXISTS. In order to create a classic shard, they WILL HAVE TO spend development time doing it, and as I've said more times than I can count, unless EA provides them with additional team members dedicated SOLELY to the classic shard, time spent developing it PULLS DEVELOPMENT TIME AWAY FROM THE CURRENT GAME.

And like it or not, like the game as it is now or not, the whole reason there is a UO today for you to even be wishing there was a classic ruleset server for is because PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY ENJOY PLAYING THE GAME UNDER THE RULESET THAT EXISTS HAVE CONTINUED TO PLAY AND PAY FOR THE GAME THAT YOU WANT TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK ON.

So for god only knows how many times it's been said, UNLESS they can develop the classic shard without pulling resources away from UO, which itself is in a state that it needs all of the developmental attention it can get from client to server to content, then your idea does nothing but HURT the potential for UO to continue.

But you have it so wrapped up in your head that "Classic Server = Easy to Release," and so in your mind there aren't any costs at all associated with it, and since you could give two damns about the current server status, it wouldn't matter to you if it lost development time to create your fantasy world. The trouble is, Morganna, REALITY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Well, you certainly are right there. Everything released in the 3 failed clients that was not lifted from 2d looks like dog poo (except the spell effects)

Yes, and the 17-year-old 2D graphics are certainly rolling in new customers daily.

Too late...that started in 2000 with UO:R, and then was made complete in 2003 with AOS. They have gone so far from what this game actually started out as that most current players have no idea what the real identity of this game actually is.

You know what's funny, Morganna. The game is 13 years old this September. 2003 was 6 years after the game was released. You do understand that this failed ruleset you keep talking about has been the game's ruleset for longer than it hasn't, right? If your contention was true, UO would already be completely dead. It's not.

And you say that Classic Shard supporters can't decide what Classic means???

Good luck with that pal.

I love how you take things out of context in order to make it look like Classic Shard is the only possible avenue for UO to take that makes any sense at all. My point is plain and simple: EA doesn't understand why UO was successful. It NEVER has understood this. This is NOT to say no one working on the game ever has, but you have only to look at EA's ENTIRE MMO history to see that they've had ONE successful MMO. ONE. They -- meaning EA, the people at the top funding stuff, and asking the people beneath them to toss chicken bones at problems -- need to understand what makes the game a success, and find a way to breath life back into it.

Hint: That life won't come from a classic ruleset server before fixing all of the other issues that UO already has against it.

It used to be.

It.
Still.
Is.

Did you say "easy"???

Yes, I said easy. It is a plain and simple, straightforward plan that can lead to future success for UO, and see an increase in the playerbase that rivals its peak (which, by the way was AFTER the classic ruleset ceased to be). Just because I use the words plain, simple, and easy does not mean that it won't be without work. One can have a simple plan that requires complex action. But in your funny little black and white "GIMME MAH CLASSIC SHARD" world, I'm certain that's a distinction clearly above your pay grade.

So let me get this straight...

You believe that creating an entirely new client, with all new artwork...EVERY SINGLE ASSET (over 10,000 unique pieces of art), new server code, new server framework, new server hardware...then, marketing the game as if it were new, meeting deadlines, lauch dates, finding ways to not lose existing players so that your revenue stream doesn't dimminish...all on a skeleton budget...will be easy???

Didn't say that at all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. By the way, you're the one contending that it requires new server frameworks and new server hardware to update a client. You probably also believe that if your mouse breaks you have to buy a new computer, but go ahead and spend your money any way you like.

But let me guess... yanking huge portions of the code base out of both the client and server, trying to stuff old portions of the old game back into it, and then praying to god that it all works as intended is also an easy solution, isn't it?

I think you need a healthy dose of reality RaDian. The things you are talking about, for a 13 year old game, are pie in the sky. With SWOR coming out, and so much competion on the market, EA would be foolish to commit that kind of development to UO at this point. I'd love to see it happen, but I think I am just going to go back to asking for a Classic Shard...that might actually happen in my lifetime.

Keep asking for a Classic Shard... trust this: if you get it without the proper development commitment to the game as it stands, and without proper commitment to improve the client, your Classic Shard will be nothing more than another nail in UO's coffin.

But enjoy your healthy dose of "reality," Morganna. You're clearly in need of a huge cup full.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

My guild on Atlantic (PoV) did the exact same thing. The difference is, that WAS the game for most of us. We enjoyed the social impact that protecting areas against PKs had on the game. It wasn't so much about enjoying the fight, it was the fact that what we did actually mattered.

No, see, that's where you're mistaken, Morganna. The difference is, that WAS the game
for a very small portion of the playerbase.

I do not understand why you fail to realize that the whole reason Trammel and Felucca split was because this ruleset you're so fond of was the one that was causing UO to hemorrhage players. I mean, you know, Felucca only became a ghost town the day that UO:R went live.

Nah, that's no indication of what people really thought about being PKed all the damned time, is it?

Many of my guild abandoned Fel, or at least the ones that joined up simply for protection did, and rest...

...well, they got bored and left Sosaria...most of them forever.

And now you think that they're just going to come rushing back in droves if that ruleset is made available again? Wishful thinking. I mean, I occasionally sit down and play Pac-Man from time to time, but I wouldn't mistakenly call it excitingly compelling gameplay that I'd do for days and weeks on end like I did when I was standing in the arcades back in the 80s.

You're confusing nostalgia with viability.

You are going on about someone enforcing "their playstyle" on someone else...but here is a news flash...

...it was the playstyle because that was what the game was designed to be. Ultima Online was never meant to be a safe...and unrealistic...world where one player could not attack another. That came as a result of the developers of that time not taking the steps need to balance the original concept.

Which is really funny that you believe that. No, the game was NOT designed to be what it became. It became that way because the designers failed to predict just how disruptive the disruptive element would be in the game. They expected players to be much more successful at delivering player meted justice. As it turns out, they were completely off base about it.

THE ORIGINAL DESIGNERS OF THE GAME HAVE STATED THIS.

So just because you seem to believe that just because the game played out like that is how it was designed to be played is ignoring the truth. I mean, you know, Monopoly wasn't designed to give you $500 for landing on free parking, but a lot of people play that way in their own houses. The difference is, me doing that in my living room doesn't affect how you play it in yours. When the disruptive element in UO was driving players away by the droves, EA did something about it.

Have you ever actually played Siege???

Yes, yes I have. Have you?

Certainly, some Siege players would play Classic, but stop spreading the lie that Siege is the same as a Classic Shard.

I'm not spreading any lies that Siege is the same as a Classic Shard, I'm saying that if truly the concern was PvP, Siege would be quite viable.

What makes no sense is that you want to roll the clock back to pre-pretty much any expansion save UO:T2A... and I'm sure you might roll that back too. My question is, where do you think UO would be today if it had not made any changes to the game play?

Oh, that's right, elsewhere you claim you want to see how UO would go if it rolled way back to that point and then made different choices. But where do you draw the lines? Do they never introduce any new landmasses? Do they never introduce any new skills? What is it that is so detrimental to UO that it just shouldn't ever be introduced?

Your basic claim is that a game that is 13 years old was best in the first two years, and that basically they should never have changed it. Let's forget for a moment how buggy the early years were, and how unstable much of it was, and let's play this silly game for a moment:

Do you honestly think UO would have survived had it never introduced a Trammel ruleset?

If you do, you're sadly, sadly mistaken.

Your entire argument makes little to no sense.

I guess, to a hardcore Trammie, Siege may seem like Classic because they are both far more difficult than current UO, but beyond open PvP, there is very little similarity between the two any more.

Pfft. A Classic Shard is not more difficult than current UO.

The only real difference between UO then and now as far as difficulty goes is for the people who don't want to be steamrolled by a bunch of PKs. I'd get along just fine in a classic UO world, because as I did then, I'd do now, and build a guild to knock their teeth out.

But UO was not more difficult on the whole by any stretch of the word back in the day.

No one is asking you to go back. If a Classic Shard did open, the last thing we would need is someone that would constantly complain about being PKed.

Awe, that's so sweet.

Never was afraid of being PKed, and still am not.

When I got tired of being PKed, I fought back. And I brought my friends with me. Believe me, we were quite successful standing up against them. But when my gameplay was no longer being dictated by folks like you, I saw no need to continue to fight. I could finally enjoy the other areas of the game.

Oh, and just for the record: So could 90%+ of the UO playerbase.

Stop dreaming.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Keep deluding yourself RaDian.

If you honestly believe that another new client is possible, without having to finally abandon the original 2d client, then there isn't much more I can say to you besides do some research. Maybe talk to a few of the devs.

The EC community continually blame the CC community for hanging on to an outdated client...and thereby holding up progress. And it is. It really, really, is. You will get no argument from me otherwise. However...it still a far cry better than the other option being offered.

Developing the kind of client that would compete with games today would definitely require some major server code upgrades, if not full replacements. Don't believe me? Ask a dev.

It's pretty obvious that you have some personal issue with the Classic Era. PKed once too often perhaps? Not sure...but those are your issues to deal with, not mine.

Fortunately, there are people in charge of Ultima Online now that have a better grasp on the current situation concerning UO's profitability than you seem to have. If you want to go through life pretending that EA is going to fund some massive re-creation of UO, then again, I cannot help you with your delusions...go seek help elsewhere.

Hopefully a Classic Shard will be created, and it will bring in enough revenue that some of the things you are describing will come to pass...but I doubt it. Meanwhile, your arguments become very tiresome. Your entire premise is based on the notion that EA will fund some massive sequel project, when in truth...they have been really close to just closing it down and considering a thing of the past. You need to come to terms with that. The days of UO being competitive with current games is over. There will be no new client, there will be no retail boxes, there will be no television ads, there will be no sequel. EA has moved on. The best we can hope for where UO is concerned is a slow, lingering death. With some luck, and perhaps some innovation, UO might see another 5 years...might. My only desire is that during that time the players that were essentially screwed over and forced out of the game they helped to build get a Classic Shard to call home, because right now, the people that inhabit the game are generally not the people that were there in the beginning.

With that, I am pretty much done with you. Until you can admit that creating yet another client would be (a) more expensive, and (b) even more risky than working on a Classic Shard, we are at an impass...and I don't really feel like wasting any more time with the topic with someone that refuse to face facts.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

But when my gameplay was no longer being dictated by folks like you, I saw no need to continue to fight. I could finally enjoy the other areas of the game.

People like me??

Considering my guild was one of the first, and largest, anti-PK guild on Atlantic...it sounds to me like people like me are people like you claim to be...

Oh, and just for the record: So could 90%+ of the UO playerbase.

Yeah, and that 90% has turned into what...about 20%?

Seems like a perfect model for success to me:

- Remove all risk and challenge from the game
- Make things as easy as possible for the players that remain
- Release regular content that essentially requires them to buy expansions
- Keep making as much money as possible, and doing as little as possible, until the last subscritions are cancelled

Great idea

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Something for the Classic UO fans that have not lost faith yet...

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k26rXxiRhc8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k26rXxiRhc8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k26rXxiRhc8

Make sure to read the comments...


...of course, every single one of those people that lament the loss of the game they LOVED are just Stratics posters logging in and "astro turfing"...right? rolleyes:

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Yeah, and that 90% has turned into what...about 20%?

Aside from your rather lengthy blathering on that I'm really, truly tired of responding to because you're using the same old flawed logic over, and over, I just wanted to point out that your math skills are horrible.

If, as you claim, all of these classic shard folk have left UO, then that 90% of the playerbase who enjoys the current UO game (Siege Perilous aside, and from what I understand they really love their shard too!) has GROWN to, oh, let's go with 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%.

Which is to say your calculated 10% (tops) that are just tripping over themselves from 1997 to pay EA for a Classic Shard is, presently, less than 1% of the current paying UO playerbase.

Got it?

Now, if your point is that today there's approximately 20% of the playerbase as there was at the game's peak, I'd point out that the game's peak was 6 years ago, and at that time, the game was nearly 7 years old. No kidding the game's lost some players in that time frame, particularly without noticeable technological advancements in either graphics or new player experience.

What I think's amazing is that in this same time period we're discussing, people have moved on to different games (I mean, you know, not everyone's going to play UO forever, no matter how good the game is), so while we can definitely attribute some of the loss of UO's playerbase to natural attrition from the game, you have this wildly inaccurate fantasy going on wherein every player who ever played "classic" UO is out there playing on free-shards and just dying to throw money at EA.

Which is ludicrous.

But keep dreaming, Morganna. Keep dreaming.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Keep deluding yourself RaDian.

If you honestly believe that another new client is possible, without having to finally abandon the original 2d client, then there isn't much more I can say to you besides do some research. Maybe talk to a few of the devs.

Okay, Morganna, pretend for a moment that I'm a computer programmer (in fact, don't pretend... I am).

I never said that they wouldn't have to finally abandon the original 2D client.

What I said was that they could provide a SINGLE client that offered a low-res mode (ie: 2D) that would take up less resources than running in full-power mode. IE: they could design a client with an "internal switch" that controlled the intensity of the graphical experience so that older players would not necessarily be forced to upgrade their systems.

This would be inside a NEW client that was designed to offer both a lower-requirement experience so as to not alienate existing customers, AND a higher-requirement modern client.

It.
Can.
Be.
Done.

The EC community continually blame the CC community for hanging on to an outdated client...and thereby holding up progress. And it is. It really, really, is. You will get no argument from me otherwise. However...it still a far cry better than the other option being offered.

Well, as I've said elsewhere outside of this discussion... when they provide a quality replacement for the CC, I'm ready to jump. KR wasn't it, and neither is the EC at present.

Developing the kind of client that would compete with games today would definitely require some major server code upgrades, if not full replacements. Don't believe me? Ask a dev.

No, no it wouldn't. In fact, they could redesign the client from the ground up without touching one line of server code outside of encryption. Now, would they take the opportunity to make certain parts of the communication process better? One would certainly hope so.

But, Morganna, in your wisdom on how the server would have to be re-written to support a modern client, you seem to forget that there have been three additional clients that all talked to UO's server at one time, all at the same time that the 2D client was still talking to it. It's still happening today.

It's actually a shame that you don't understand the difference between client and server.

It's pretty obvious that you have some personal issue with the Classic Era. PKed once too often perhaps? Not sure...but those are your issues to deal with, not mine.

Quite trying to ascribe issues to me over something that I've stated so numerously that it's gone beyond ridiculous.

My issue with them firing up a classic shard is plain and simple.

Development time spent on a Classic Shard would pull valuable time and resources away from the needs that UO currently has, and would be detrimental to the progression that the game needs to have in order to survive.

I'm sort of done saying it.

Fortunately, there are people in charge of Ultima Online now that have a better grasp on the current situation concerning UO's profitability than you seem to have. If you want to go through life pretending that EA is going to fund some massive re-creation of UO, then again, I cannot help you with your delusions...go seek help elsewhere.

Yes, that's why there's been an announcement decreeing that they're going forward with a classic shard that all of us have missed, right? They have said they're considering it and analyzing the viability of it. Your delusions seem to overlook this fact.

With that, I am pretty much done with you. Until you can admit that creating yet another client would be (a) more expensive, and (b) even more risky than working on a Classic Shard, we are at an impass...and I don't really feel like wasting any more time with the topic with someone that refuse to face facts.

It's definitely not more risky than working on a classic shard. See, UO still has a viable audience. And, it's not the classic shard audience. It's not an impasse. It's you grasping at straws.

The rest of your drivel makes baseless presumptions that you continually make in order to make the classic shard seem more viable, and go flying off onto tangents that include that I'm somehow asking for a sequel to UO. It's funny that you think UO's seen its time -- a proper facelift could bring it greater market share. Do I think it would ever compete with WoW? No. Do I think they could work wonders with the appropriate amount of funding and development and have it see a much higher peak of subscribers than it's seen previously? Yes. See, what's funny in your assertion that EA's moved on from UO... of all of its MMOs, SWTOR not withstanding (as it's not out yet), UO still has the largest paying subscriber base.

Strange, that.

 

[canary]

With that, I am pretty much done with you. Until you can admit that creating yet another client would be (a) more expensive, and (b) even more risky than working on a Classic Shard, we are at an impass...and I don't really feel like wasting any more time with the topic with someone that refuse to face facts.

Actually, the correct word is 'impasse', Morgana.

And please, feel free to just stop talking about it with everyone here. I'm going to use your 'posting logic' and say that 98.234% (because as we see, you enjoy making up numbers you clearly don't know exist and pass them off as fact) of all stratics posters are very over hearing your rants on this matter. Because that is what you have been doing since you chimed in on this thread... ranting. You have proved nothing more than ANYONE ELSE in this thread.

 

[canary]

Developing the kind of client that would compete with games today would definitely require some major server code upgrades, if not full replacements. Don't believe me? Ask a dev.

Ding, wrong again, thank you for playing.

Draconi himself on here recently said that, yes, it can be done.

So much for that theory of yours, huh...?

edit: You keep asking for 'facts' from others... yet I find it very sad and a bit puzzling that you cannot bring any to the table yourself. Or that, when you do, they are completely wrong.

 

[Aragon100]

You do understand that what you're speaking of was the complete freedom to enforce your style of gameplay onto others. UO started as a social experiment in many aspects, and as time grew, the developers realized that it was a failure in that aspect.

Yes i agree that i and my likeminded could enforce our playstyle on others. And? That was one aspect why i liked UO as much as i did. The interaction between players. Trammel never reached that interaction cause game mechanisms as no PvP, no stealing, no griefing, no PK:ing and on and on..... And if felucca was to harsh for you then you had the option to play trammel UO. I was a grownup during early UO and my kids who wasnt even teenagers when they started with UO always enjoyed felucca UO. They still have their old friends from UO and have even met many of them real life. One of my sons will travel from Sweden to Germany at the end of september to meet one of his old UO friends. My guild still have +50 old UO friends active and we were all felucca players so calling it a failed social experiment couldnt be more wrong. I wonder how many of the trammel guilds that still have the same amount of friends from UO active on their boards?

Okay, first off, on Great Lakes, I can assure you many of us PvPers were aware of the need for some of the more effective PKs to boost their advantage using particular external programs that, yes, were around waaaaay back then. Secondly, you might call it "risk vs reward," but when it's the PvMers who were putting in all the risk and the PKers who were reaping all of the reward, you can certainly see why it ended up going the way that it did.

I dont understand why you have to take up third party programs? Cheaters have been arround for a long time and is even more frequent in today MMO gaming. Statloss PK:s had to put in alot more risk when attacking a tamer. He had to face many weeks of retraining upon death, the tamer had to restock and he was good to go. Statloss were a good balancing factor.

Crafting wasn't killed by the fact that they switched to AoS-style resists or that suddenly they were less needed. Crafting was killed first off by in-game vendors -- it meant that people who would actually stand around and sell their wares now had to compete with someone who left them on a vendor, and if you didn't price-check your own stuff, you suffered the fate of being the wrong price. This led to the second contributing factor, macroers who were pulling up tons of resources. When you had to stand around and sell your stuff, you could only sell what you had while you were standing there, so even if you had tons of resources at home, you clearly couldn't be on 24/7 selling your wares. Finally, crafting suffered at the hands of "just about everyone has a crafter." Sure, there are rare exceptions, and new things like imbuing take awhile to trickle down, but most people have a smith and a tailor, probably a tinker, and likely a carpenter... they usually tend to be a mule character. Again, I won't say all have them, but really, when I can make the stuff myself, why would I buy yours?

My point was that AoS brought way better weapons and armors into the game which made the GM smithy ones uninteresting. I had a smith that took a long, long time to GM and i always felt a great demand for my products. This ended with AoS. I felt betrayed since my hard work was for nothing. One of my real life friends still play my old account and he feel the same.

Thieves... were as bad as PKs... In fact, many of them were working in teams.

Yeah i know, i had a hate/love feeling towards thiefs. They usually had a friend to loot the one that got guardwhacked. Once i met a disarm thief that disarmed and stole my weapon and then he used that same weapon to kill me. But thiefs had a role to play in old UO, it added some realism to the game and was good for some of the roleplayers.

And tamers pets dieing permanently... well, hey, you might call that a rougher world. I call that a colossal waste of time training pet skills.

Retame a pet. If training unkillable pets is what you prefer then play on today servers.

I don't know what shard you played on, but here on Great Lakes the word "few" didn't become applicable until after Trammel.

Statloss had a good balancing effect on the numbers of PK:s. Just compare UO statloss with games like Darkfall and Mortal Online and you'll understand how harsh UO statloss really were.
I played on Atlantic first in a guild called Order of Beers (OoB) with a guildmaster named Sir Lancelot. Then we moved to Europe when that shard opened up.

And yet that's only a minor featureset that still exists in the game. And in fact, people who enjoy PvP still find a way to PvP in UO. It's the PKers who are, by and large, left out in the cold. Believe me, a Classic Shard isn't going to bring back a steady supply of victims.

I never searched for victims during PvP fights. We searched for the likeminded good competition. That's why we always played in chaos/order and/or factions. If a classic shard opens up again i'm sure most will be seasoned players that is aware of the game and ruleset of felucca. That is also a reason why i doubt many will rage quit. Yes you can PvP in today UO, but you need to do alot of PvM if you want to be competitive. Today UO PvP is alot more itembased PvP and the insurance removed the spice full loot brought to the game. Totally uninteresting for a old UO veteran as me.

Which is funny because aside from the changing of mechanics in weaponry and armor, all of the things that you mention were long dead long before the Age of Shadows hit. So really, how is it that Age of Shadows destroyed the "uniqueness" of UO. I mean, truly, let's be honest here: Two primary things changed with Age of Shadows. Item insurance was introduced (and really, if you're in it for the love of PvP, why isn't a handful of gold enough... couldn't you just take that and spend it on stuff?), and the way armor and weapons worked changed some (I say "some" because it added a new, necessary dynamic to the game to keep it interesting... it's not difficult to figure out, and while I agree -- and always have -- that it could have been introduced better, it certainly didn't destroy UO).

UO PvP was a unique PvP game. Itembased PvP that required alot of PvM to be competitive changed UO PvP dramatically, fast cast jewelry changed a below average mage into a unbeatable one. New skillsystem and spells changed the game into something that many from the old school PvP crowd could'nt accept. Insurance system that removed full loot was a major change. What you call necessary dynamic changes i and most of the other PvP oriented old school players call the changes that destroyed our beloved UO. We left the game after these changes and will never come back before we get a pre-AoS shard to play on. So it didnt destroy your UO but is sure destroyed the UO i liked.

I mean, come on, the PKs that ran around with their ill-gotten exceedingly accurate indestructible long swords of vanquishing weren't playing an item-based game?

Old UO were alot less itembased. A good mage could easily kill a good dexer with that kind of sword. You could even give him multiple DP on that sword and he could still loose towards a experienced mage, it was about playerskill. AoS took the item PvP to a new level and i do think you agree with me here.

Err... right... we're still discussing Age of Shadows, right? Or are we talking about when most of these veterans lost their prey to Renaissance? Or when they were denied access to Ilshenar? Seriously? The thing that was the "final straw" for "so many" Feluccan "veterans" was the change in armor statistics? Seriously? I mean, faction folk had been playing for years without getting anything serious from loot other than some potions, some bandages, and some GM made armor anyway. So "oh noes, I can't loot the armor anymore!" made a vast change that just made them all leave?

Or is it more true to say that well before Age of Shadows these "veterans" had already departed the game?

On Europe shard felucca was most intense during UOR. It was actually the most intense and crowded felucca era. That era ended with AoS. Some left the game with trammel but most left the game when AoS came out. Item insurance, item PvP, new skills and spells was some of the reasons why felucca died. Having to roam Doom for weeks to get the latest good jewelry or weapon wasnt interesting for the PvP crowd. They were used to buy their weapons and armors from the local smith and had a guaranted supply. Doom rares was a longshot every time you entered. Most of the times you came out with nothing more then you entered with.

Age of Shadows did not destroy the Feluccan game. I mean, really, they put in power scrolls and champ spawns in, and double resources in Felucca, and all kinds of things prior to Age of Shadows to help encourage people to play more in Felucca. I'm sure they did those things because there was already a thriving population in Felucca that, you know, didn't really need any help. And, of course, in reverse irony, it should be noted how many times it's acknowledged that double resources and power scrolls did basically nothing to draw new people in, it just gave the existing Feluccans more of condensed area to fight in. Which, as typical Feluccan "veterans" did, they found a way to cheat at through ghost cams and all kinds of silliness.

I agree, powerscrolls was not something that boosted the population in felucca. Many that played felucca didnt see these powerscrolls as a good implementation. Their 7xGM mage character was useless compared to these 120 eval and magery mages. They couldnt compete anymore cause their toons got worthless if they didnt find these scrolls. So they left. PS was the beginning of the end.

The statement says a lot about what a vast majority of playerbase in Ultima Online preferred. What I think you don't seem to understand is that my guild stepped up to the front lines to try to make it so that people who wanted to play something other than "your" game had an opportunity to do so. Of course, the truth of the matter was, most nights we were in constant conflict with one PK guild or another, which was fine, because while they were focused on us, they were seldom focused elsewhere.

If you didnt like the felucca gameplay then just enter trammel and leave felucca for the ones that learned to enjoy that kind of gameplay. That way i could'nt enforce my playstyle onto you. You had a choice given to you by developers. What AoS did though was it removed our game entirely. Our old UO was replaced with something we could'nt accept so we ended our subscriptions. So we had no choice, we could'nt enter another realm and play the game we loved. We were out in the cold.

 

[HD2300]

The best we can hope for where UO is concerned is a slow, lingering death. With some luck, and perhaps some innovation, UO might see another 5 years...might. My only desire is that during that time the players that were essentially screwed over and forced out of the game they helped to build get a Classic Shard

This in a nutshell is what the ringleader of Team Classic Shard believes... Whatever EA does UO will definitely die, so they may as well build you a Classic shard.

I as well as most people believe, that EA can turn things around spectacularly, with one or a couple of good decisions and a great team. Microsoft, Yahoo both started from 1 person and 2 people respectively.

However...

Development time spent on a Classic Shard would pull valuable time and resources away from the needs that UO currently has, and would be detrimental to the progression that the game needs to have in order to survive.

... make the wrong decision and it is game over, pull the plug.

Anyway bets are this weekend EA will announce F2P and/or an expansion which will mean Classic is shelved forever/for another 2 years. Ho Ho Ho.

 

[Kaleb]

For accuracy...there are really only 2 server emulators out there, and neither one specifically emulates any era. The creators of the "free shards" that run on the emulators decide which era to emulate.

I have no numbers in front of me that indicate which era which free shards emulate, and I am pretty sure you don't either.

I would hazard a guess that if there are more post-AOS free shards, it stems mostly from the fact that creating a post-AOS shard would be a lot easier than modifying down to only include pre-AOS content. I have never ran a free shard, besides just for fun, so I have no idea what the intentions or limitations that most free shard admins face are.

I do know this much however, the most populated free shards (and I will not name them here) are T2A era servers. So while it is possible that more post-AOS shards are out there, the ones that draw the most players are not only pre-AOS, but also pre-Trammel. If you disagree with this, I encourage you to do some research, because I sure as heck am not wasting my time with it.

+1,

 

[Kaleb]

Development time spent on a Classic Shard would pull valuable time and resources away from the needs that UO currently has, and would be detrimental to the progression that the game needs to have in order to survive.

Considering I just shut down my last 2 accounts, at $30 a month (at one time nearly $150) its less for the devs, I also have a good number of friends that have shut down their accounts this last couple months, We are on a Player made pre aos server now, My guild is mostly made up of x EA players and we have nearly 200 players in our guild, Think a Classic Shard would Pull resources? The current UO is pulling the most valuable resource, $.

If a classic Shard were made there will be enough people playing for it to pay for its self. if anything it will add to the resources they currently have.

 

[Babble]

Hmm, big announcement.
might be that they finally open a big item shop.
Buy a doom Artefact for $5. Want a castle? For $50 you get a preplaced one on a special island we just patched in

 

[northwoodschopper]

Considering I just shut down my last 2 accounts, at $30 a month (at one time nearly $150) its less for the devs, I also have a good number of friends that have shut down their accounts this last couple months, We are on a Player made pre aos server now, My guild is mostly made up of x EA players and we have nearly 200 players in our guild, Think a Classic Shard would Pull resources? The current UO is pulling the most valuable resource, $.

If a classic Shard were made there will be enough people playing for it to pay for its self. if anything it will add to the resources they currently have.

pfft, you all would return to the pirate server once you realize the EA gig is no better than the free one. no one in their right mind is going to blindly support the EA server for long when the pirate ones are better balanced, better supported, and free.

 

[Coldren]

pfft, you all would return to the pirate server once you realize the EA gig is no better than the free one.

Provided that:

A) The server stays up...
B) Saving the game world is done behind the scenes without notice...
C) People don't have multiple accounts unless they pay for it...
D) They actively try to block scripters (In as much as they do) instead of actively promoting it...
E) The GM's are professional, helpful, and courteous (In as much as they are), and are not prone to giving things to friends ..

.. It would already better than 99.9% of the Pre-AoS "pirate" servers... I say 99.9% because even if one does exist, I haven't seen it yet, but I'll give the existence of one the benefit of the doubt. The best one I've seen meets conditions A and E. Haven't seen any that get 3 out of 5 or better.

This is why many of us who actively support a Classic Shard want to see EA produce it. The free ones have their issues, but unfortunately, right now the choice is between those free ones with their problems and nothing.

Some of us want to see it done right.

 

[Yalp]

, if you could, please share with us what steps you believe the devs could take to expand the playerbase. Keep in mind, UO is currently losing subscribers every month...slowly, the game is dying (as they all do eventually). So, what can they do to either bring in new players, or bring back old ones??

If you have the magic answer that Cal is looking for, I am certain he would be very happy to hear it...

1.. advertising campaign
2... shelf presence
..3...better customer service

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Actually, the correct word is 'impasse', Morgana.

Oh dear God no! Not a typo!!

And please, feel free to just stop talking about it with everyone here. I'm going to use your 'posting logic' and say that 98.234% (because as we see, you enjoy making up numbers you clearly don't know exist and pass them off as fact) of all stratics posters are very over hearing your rants on this matter. Because that is what you have been doing since you chimed in on this thread... ranting. You have proved nothing more than ANYONE ELSE in this thread.

You are right, I have proved nothing more than anyone else in this thread, because there is no way to prove anything concerning something that hasn't happened yet.

You say *I* am making up numbers? What numbers have you seen me "make up"?

Oh...let me guess, you are referring to the 90% -> 20% comment. Well, for those that weren't quite bright enough to follow along...I'll explain it rolleyes:

The original claim was that 90% of the playerbase preferred Trammel (a baseless claim with no factual data to back it up...but it is not something I am will to dispute because I also have no factual data to dispute it). I said that that 90% turned into 20%...meaning, 90% of the UO population (the number of players left at the time Trammel was introduced) has dwindled to about 20% of that number of players. Once again, not based on any numbers I have "made up", but rather numbers that others have posted here.

Also...if you don't want to read my "rants" there is a handy ignore feature...or, you can just stop reading at any time. But otherwise, I will post what I want...so no need for you to about it.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

pfft, you all would return to the pirate server once you realize the EA gig is no better than the free one. no one in their right mind is going to blindly support the EA server for long when the pirate ones are better balanced, better supported, and free.

I don't mind spending the $12.99 x 2 per month on my accounts if I am enjoying the product. I'd much rather play on EA shards because I know that they will not disappear without notice. I also know (or at least hope) that GMs are not jacking up their buddies and thereby making PvP totally imbalanced. I also know that with EA, it will maintained properly (at least compared to some free shards out there).

Most people I have met that play on free shards say that they would prefer to be playing on EA servers, but that EA shards don't offer the gameplay style they prefer.

Again, you are assuming that because you enjoy Trammel and AOS, that everyone else must also enjoy that same thing. That's simply not true.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Yeah i know, i had a hate/love feeling towards thiefs. They usually had a friend to loot the one that got guardwhacked. Once i met a disarm thief that disarmed and stole my weapon and then he used that same weapon to kill me. But thiefs had a role to play in old UO, it added some realism to the game and was good for some of the roleplayers.

Thieves and PKs add challenge to an otherwise easy game. Once Trammel was introduced, it became painfully obvious how bad UO's creature AI really was/is. That's the real problem that most of these anti-Classic days posters have...they couldn't compete back in the old days. I remember reading Stratics back then, and every other thread was someone whining over being PKed or stolen from. The game was just too difficult for them, so they begged and whined until EasyMode...err...Trammel...was introduced.

I guess every game needs difficulty settings...and UO has Easy (Trammel shards) and Hard (Siege) ... its just a shame they ruined Siege with AoS, otherwise, I'd have been happy just playing there. That doesn't mean that I want to see Siege converted into a Classic Shard...that would not be fair to the players on Siege that enjoy item based gameplay.

 

[Satzumi]

Everything Morgana said till now is just true...
They have to do something or UO will die and the Playerbase playing on freeshards is big and most of em will just change to EA if they will open up a classic shard because of free shard developers wrong decisions on different aspects, server downtimes, hackers, scripters riddicilous donations- id rather play and pay on a well hosted pay to play shard as on one of the free shards.
(and i actually play or played on most of em) EA has to make a decision and i bet they wont make another new client for uo since they could get the money from people by just recompile to a classic shard, there is enough playerbase for it.

 

[[JD]]

Quickly: I spent a Sunday going through the 3rd party program detection report. I have identified more than a few accounts, and these will be handed off to CS to take action. The first step is a warning, the next I think we will have a little fun with.

It’s important that we do not do “mass bannings” for offenders. One, it’s not just, and also it’s more fun to make a public display of cheaters … at times.

this is from Cal's note and made me raise an eyebrow.

we had so many threads where people claimed cheaters were banned, or even claimed to be a banned cheater.

where were these warnings? where was the public making fun?

personally i think nothing has been done to any of the cheaters, except the unattended macroers, which is nothing new.

someone said uo is dying and they are right. people leave this game. they leave their friends behind. who in turn have less friends and feel the need to leave also.

ive been making regular trips to new haven on sonoma and haven't seen more than 1 new character in MONTHS. oh sure i did see a few mules/alts, but not someone who TRULY looked new, running around in horrible armor, doing newbie things.

where is the NEW BLOOD, UO?

UO is like a microcosm of a civicization where everyone is an adult or senior, and there are no babies coming into the world. What happens when the last adult turns into a senior, and that senior passes?