What route would UO had taken if UO:R never had happened?

[Fayled Dhreams]

I find this informative for a few parts you didn't bold. It's a fact that PKs were a problem and caused many to quit. It was probably the best solution at the time and a short term success, but that quote must be really old because no game would implement a split like that ever again. Games have learned from this and it was a mistake, although Tram had the intended results of curbing PKs, it alienated a part of its subscribers and split the community. Even if the Fel playerbase was only 25% of UO, it's bad business. Games today would find a way to keep 100% of their customers and that solution is seperate PvP and PvE servers not Tram/Fel.

It specificly mentions the growth in new markets, so it backs up what I said about EA quarterlies from 2000. In fact the only way they could show the true impact of Tram was to ignore the massive amount of new subs from Japan and focus on North American subs, which it points out that a lot are reactivations of old accounts. Isn't that kinda like the idea behind a classic shard

Excuse me but, minor inference fail there ...If a game "goes live" with separate servers for PvE/PvP ... they HAVE implemented the split ... see?

As for your percentages ... it would appear you are raising the old adage "the customer is always right" as some sort of "truthiness"it is not ... as a matter of course "The customer Is NOT always right" ya can google that.

as for "ignore the massive amount of new subs from Japan and focus on North American subs" derrrr whuat? goes to math and percentages ... again: either you deal with 100%'s as they ARE
Companies try to maximize retention from their markets
or go really classic ... ie through the looking glass.

 

[HD2300]

All I see in classic shard threads are the same 4 anti-classic trolls trying to derail them and bait xyz. Funny how it works both ways.

No I think mostly everyone was having a civil debate.

Yet again I issue the challenge. Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is still massive demand. Prove the concept.It is easy. Norcal, you can do it now.

 

[NuSair]

My account was hacked years after Trammel was introduced, and I lost everything.

Please explain how Trammel can protect you from hacks or bug exploits.

I would appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. It would be nice if you could have a conversation or response that wasn't anti-tram when tram wasn't even part of the conversation.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Dont like Trammel and insurance? ... Dont like AOS? ... Want to play 1998 T2A?

Just cancel your account(s) and play on a freeshard. Soon enough, the "95%" will not be enough to keep the game going. Then they will be without UO unless they too join freeshards.

Great plan!

"If you don't like what I like, just get out and take that subscription money with you!!"

Yes...a genius plan indeed.

 

[NorCal]

Excuse me but, minor inference fail there ...If a game "goes live" with separate servers for PvE/PvP ... they HAVE implemented the split ... see?

As for your percentages ... it would appear you are raising the old adage "the customer is always right" as some sort of "truthiness"it is not ... as a matter of course "The customer Is NOT always right" ya can google that.

as for "ignore the massive amount of new subs from Japan and focus on North American subs" derrrr whuat? goes to math and percentages ... again: either you deal with 100%'s as they ARE
Companies try to maximize retention from their markets
or go really classic ... ie through the looking glass.

You are right if it happens from the start they are still split. It's how they were split that was the mistake and it's really not even an arguement. I understand why, the lack of character transfers and the fact that UO wasn't under developement it was already live contributed to Trammel. UO was an experiment it was the first of its kind. Different playstyles were forced to co-exist. When it was apparent that they couldn't, it should have been obvious to seperate them instead of forcing them to continue to co-exist and making one playstyle a "red headed step child" What can't be denied is that it was the wrong implementation.

Look at WoW as an example of the customer is always right. People complained in vanilla WoW that only a handful of elite guilds got to do 40 man raids to get top end gear. It wasn't easy to run a 40 man guild there was drama. They introduced 20 man raids. People still complained that the gear wasn't as good. In the first expansion they made raids 25/10 man instead of 40/20 man. People complained that they had to PvE to get good gear to PvP and all they wanted to do was PvP. They provided gear from battlegrounds and arenas. Raiders complained that they deserved more rewards for being elite, Blizzard allowed them to be one tier above people that farmed badges in 5 man pugs or 10 man raids and gave them special rewards like mounts for killing cutting edge content, but they caved to the majority the casual gamer and let them get gear easier. People that prefered battlegrounds to arenas complained the best gear was in the arenas, so WoW made rated battlegrounds. However they never alienated any customers. As a result they have 11 million subs.

The customer might not always be right, but why lose the revenue. That's just bad business. You will end up only having a niche in the market.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I would appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. It would be nice if you could have a conversation or response that wasn't anti-tram when tram wasn't even part of the conversation.

From your earlier post:

I am rather amazed at the rose colored glasses people have on.

Having played since beta (toss in about a 4 year break to play EQ ~2000-2004), saying there wasn't rampant pking is just wishful thinking.

People were always trying to come up with new ways to kill you in guardzone. And you couldn't hunt anywhere without people training you (dragging creatures on top of you, then hiding to watch you die) or using some hack/script to pk you.

Twice I had my house looted because of hacks. Of course none of that was ever replaced. To lose everything you worked for, building up over 6 months all because some lame script/hack kidding thinks that makes him cool.

There was no 'hunting down' of pks. Either they ganked you or they ran off. And sorry, I have better things to do with my time than to spend 5 hours chasing after a couple of people.

I worked 40+ hours a week. Life is stressful enough, the last thing I wanted to do was come home to more greifing online is something I did to supposedly relax. That is what eventually caused me to leave the game in the first place. I had just finally had enough of it. There were no consequences for their actions. This has been brought up time and again by the people who MADE the game.

Nostalgia is a very powerful thing. Personally, I feel that it is nostalgia that is behind this classic/pre- AOS/UO:R shard.

I also feel that people seem to have the idea that by bringing back a shard of this type will return the game to some idealized utopia.... without remembering all the problems that existed back then. Pk, hacking, scripting, griefing....

Pre-UO:R there was no end game for UO. It had no place to go, it was just the accumliation of resources. I made my millions reselling regs, scribing and potion making. 5 houses, all on one account, all on Atlantic.

You said this, not me...how is that me putting words into your mouth?

Are you saying that your post had nothing to do with Trammel?? You were describing how "bad" things were pre-UO:R. That means before Trammel...does it not?

It sounds like you had some bad experiences...like someone looting your house by using a bug. But you posted about that in the context of "I can't believe the rose colored glasses people have" when speaking about the pre-Trammel days.

My point to you was that it would not matter if there was Trammel or no Trammel...if it was an exploit of a bug, it would have taken place no matter what. The thing that prevents that from happening now is because the bug was fixed...not because Trammel was introduced.

But you are not the first to try and link the pre-Trammel ruleset with things that went on pre-Trammel that had nothing to do with the ruleset...and I am certain you will not be the last.

 

[HD2300]

...

Yet again I issue the challenge. Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is still massive P2P demand for what you want. Your 100% confident in your judgement, so go for it Morgana. You can do it. It takes less than 1 minute. Form the guild and get all the 1998 fanbois to join it. Prove to everyone that you were right all along and the anti-1998 fanbois were wrong.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Yet again I issue the challenge. Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is still massive P2P demand for what you want. Your 100% confident in your judgement, so go for it Morgana. You can do it. It takes less than 1 minute. Form the guild and get all the 1998 fanbois to join it. Prove to everyone that you were right all along and the anti-1998 fanbois were wrong.

You keep spouting this, but there is nothing about it that can even come close to simulating a Classic environment. Again, you miss the entire point...it wasn't only about open PvP...there was a LOT more to it.

And besides, with the dwindling UO population as it is now, good luck finding enough people to even start a large guild these days...much less one with any conditions attached to it.

Former players are not going to re-subscribe to UO to play some ridiculous game of tag in a guild. They will come back for a classic shard however...but you anti-classic shard types would rather see them keep their money.

Good call (not).

 

[NorCal]

No I think mostly everyone was having a civil debate.

Yet again I issue the challenge. Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is still massive demand. Prove the concept.It is easy. Norcal, you can do it now.

People did this in WoW and it actually worked. There were lvl 60 guilds and although they couldn't stop getting xp and leveling they could decide to not use the talent points from lvling. They enjoyed vanilla WoW long after it died. Cata changed that as it revamped the original lands. It can't stop them from being completely destroyed by lvl 80s though. They have no level playing field on PvP servers.

It's possible and might actually be fun if they could be left alone. One thing I learned from WoW, people even if they lose nothing of value hate to be 1-2 shot killed in PvP. How would someone in vendor gear fair vs someone in full AOS artifact imbued gear. It won't work. You need a level playing field.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

heh!
I believe the point that HE DID make ... was that he would not Have come back ... except that trammel DID exist.
ie. he did not come back to a "classic" UO.

btw.

But you are not the first to try and link the pre-Trammel ruleset with things that went on pre-Trammel that had nothing to do with the ruleset...and I am certain you will not be the last.

would that be a self referential statement?

 

[HD2300]

Yet again I issue the challenge. Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is still massive P2P demand for what you want. Your 100% confident in your judgement, so go for it Morgana. You can do it. It takes less than 1 minute. Form the guild and get all the 1998 fanbois to join it. Prove to everyone that you were right all along and the anti-1998 fanbois were wrong.

You keep spouting this, but there is nothing about it that can even come close to simulating a Classic environment. Again, you miss the entire point...it wasn't only about open PvP...there was a LOT more to it.

And besides, with the dwindling UO population as it is now, good luck finding enough people to even start a large guild these days...much less one with any conditions attached to it.

Former players are not going to re-subscribe to UO to play some ridiculous game of tag in a guild. They will come back for a classic shard however...but you anti-classic shard types would rather see them keep their money.

Good call (not).

Sounds like a lot of weak excuses to me. There is effectively no difference between a guild with a set of agreed rules and a shard with the same rules coded. So much for the "massive" demand for a Pay to Play (P2P) 1998 shard. It all boils down to how many people are dumb enough to pay for something where they can get elsewhere easily for free, and the answer is not many.

 

[HD2300]

People did this in WoW and it actually worked. There were lvl 60 guilds and although they couldn't stop getting xp and leveling they could decide to not use the talent points from lvling. They enjoyed vanilla WoW long after it died. Cata changed that as it revamped the original lands. It can't stop them from being completely destroyed by lvl 80s though. They have no level playing field on PvP servers.

It's possible and might actually be fun if they could be left alone. One thing I learned from WoW, people even if they lose nothing of value hate to be 1-2 shot killed in PvP. How would someone in vendor gear fair vs someone in full AOS artifact imbued gear. It won't work. You need a level playing field.

Yes, you can do it with do it with the systems in UO now in a level playing field. If everyone in the guild/alliance/warring guilds/warring alliances stays in Trammel (which is what you guys want anyway) the only people that can attack you are people in guilds agreeing the the same rules. Bingo - a "1998 shard" in 1 minute.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Sounds like a lot of weak excuses to me. There is effectively no difference between a guild with a set of agreed rules and a shard with the same rules coded.

Of course there is.

- Too much land mass.
- Hideous neon crap.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches).
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc.
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players.

Again...you have completely missed the point.

If classic fans want to just have open PvP, we'd be playing Siege (which has its own set of issues)...or we would just stay in Fel. Being in a guild with people that agree to specific rules doesn't preclude you from still having to exist in a ruined world with a dysfunctional economy.

So much for the "massive" demand for a Pay to Play (P2P) 1998 shard. It all boils down to how many people are dumb enough to pay for something where they can get elsewhere easily for free, and the answer is not many.

So you say...but you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back that up beyond your own biased speculation. You assume (incorrectly) that because players left, that they would not come back for a classic shard because they can play that for free elsewhere. I have talked to many, many, freeshard players that say that they would jump at the chance to come back to EA shards...and pay for it...if a Classic Shard existed. Somehow, I doubt you have talked to anyone besides current players that quite content with neon sunglasses and ridable pink dogs in carebear land where these is no risk or challenge.

But...I am quite sure you already know all of this, and that this is nothing but another failed attempt to troll a thread that discusses something you have no interest in. Call it "forum griefing" if you will.

 

[HD2300]

Sounds like a lot of weak excuses to me. There is effectively no difference between a guild with a set of agreed rules and a shard with the same rules coded.

Of course there is.

- Too much land mass.
- Hideous neon crap.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches).
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc.
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players.

...

Call it "forum griefing" if you will.

- Too much land mass. <- no one is forcing you to go outside trammel
- Hideous neon crap. <- wear darksunglasses or turn down or off colour on your monitor.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches). <- killing monsters that are now easy to kill wasnt easy then
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc. <- no one is forcing anyone to use them
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players. <- turn down/off colour on monitors or wear dark sunglasses

Seriously these are just the weakest excuses ever. Awww nooooes, I cant play the game anymore because someone has a neon sword. Help Help.

Again I challenge any 1998 fanboi to start a "old school" guild and prove conclusively that this "massive" demand exists. It only takes 1 minute to do. Go For It.

Please use the ignore list if you think anyone is griefing or stalking you.

 

[Babble]

My judgement is that after about 6 months you will have some of these reactivations still subscribing, but UO will lose many more existing subscriptions from cancellations. "T2A" shard would result in a significant loss of subscriptions overall.

Want to play 1998 T2A UO? Form a guild of likeminded people who all agree to not use insurance and only use NPC items. Just do it. No one is stopping you. I challenge any 1998 fanboi to do this. Prove that the 1998 fanbois are right and there is massive demand. It is easy. You can do it now.

Uhm, sounds like what european roleplayers are doing since 2000 ...
I still question their judgement though, as they pay the fees but ea surely does not develop for them as they have no chance with gm equipment

 

[Babble]

Just cancel your account(s) and play on a freeshard. Soon enough, the "95%" will not be enough to keep the game going. Then they will be without UO unless they too join freeshards.

Great plan!

"If you don't like what I like, just get out and take that subscription money with you!!"

Yes...a genius plan indeed.

That is EA's problem. EA has to come up with a plan for customers not the gamers

 

[Coppelia]

Are you serious? I mentioned North American subs in the part you quoted me. You have to completely eliminate Japan from the equation, those are all new subs and don't know or care about Tram/Fel. The quote you provided mentioned reactivation. You can't ignore the expansion factor or one house per account either. Games usually experience an increase in subs after an expansion from advertising and prime shelf space. New customers don't count they don't know about rampant PKing. I didn't know about PKs when I bought T2A. Just saw it on the shelf, I had my first computer and thought it looked cool. Reactivations are the only way to prove its impact. As for quiting in droves I admit that PKs caused people to quit. Tram caused people to quit, so did AOS. What is a drove exactly, can you put a real number on it without making one up?

All I see in classic shard threads are the same 4 anti-classic trolls trying to derail them and bait Morgana. Funny how it works both ways.

Actually, you can't ignore new customers in the Trammel equation. I knew about PKing in UO before being able to play the game. Years after, when I talked about me playing UO to a friend, he answered me : "What? Isn't it dead because of PKs?"

You seem to have no idea about the bad reputation it gave to the game. That's from a player's sight, but you can see that it's confirmed by a dev in Skrag's quotes. It was really bad for PR. UO lost potential customers because of that reputation too.

 

[copycon]

Actually, you can't ignore new customers in the Trammel equation. I knew about PKing in UO before being able to play the game. Years after, when I talked about me playing UO to a friend, he answered me : "What? Isn't it dead because of PKs?"

If that was the thought back then and your friend thought that UO was "dead" at the time; which it obviously wasn't. Then what is the reason for the current state of the game? It's certainly not lack of dynamic content in the form of challenge, or is it?

I believe that the different good and evil play styles that existed at the time added a necessary level of conflict that no longer exists today. That conflict is what kept the players on edge and always wondering what would happen the next time they logged on and stepped out of town protection. One of the most significant elements is that the conflict also introduced a whole different set of emotions for the player, such as adventure, conquest, suspense, excitement, revenge or anger. I believe that is one of the biggest fundamental differences between then and now and that is what players are missing whether they realize it or not.

Many reasons can be argued, and it is clear that the steps that were taken to curb the PK problem succeeded, but were they the right steps? I think not.

 

[Coppelia]

If that was the thought back then and your friend thought that UO was "dead" at the time; which it obviously wasn't. Then what is the reason for the current state of the game? It's certainly not lack of dynamic content in the form of challenge, or is it?

My friend thought it was dead because he stopped caring about UO when he understood how bad the PvP system was. It wasn't a secret how people were sick of groups of PK waiting at the exit of town to gank defenseless newbies, every magazine talking about UO mentioned it. Add to that the fact that being European on a US server would make you ping badly in an already slow connections era. Not very incentive to know you'll have to try to play despite of the griefers when you already swing your sword twice less than your enemy and you can't run away from them.


Now for the current state of the game, I think it's a cumulation of mistakes tackling a great game. There's the Third Dawn client, AoS Diabloization, lots of unfinished features, lame lottery systems, misdirection for the two attempts to modernize the client, all that in a very large game with lots of possible activities and content that new MMORPGs often try to partially copy (but it's always very limited), an awesome gameplay for roleplaying. I've just never seen any other game giving as many tools to roleplayers.
But like any other MMORPG, it's more and more difficult for it renew its playerbase. And it's not news that whatever the quality is, there'll be players leaving the game. I'm not sure UO has more difficulty to renew its playerbase than any other MMORPG though. Past a number of years, it won't regrow.


There I give you my vision of the current state of UO. And if you ask me what should be done, I'll answer you (even if you're not asking in fact) that certainly not crying about the past and how it was great back then. Yes, there was a time when I was able to play forever with a rock, but mind you, we all change. What should be done is a merge of server to lessen costs and have more active players together, advertize the game for what it is even if I know it's the last thing you have the right to spend money on, and lower the subscription fee.
Then stop wasting time and resource to recreate what's already good with a fake 3D client. For a quality 2D client, re-render the original models to have a better definition and 32bits colors, and then there are a lot of creatures and equipment to add in 2D, as the creation of art for 2D stopped with Third Dawn and everything since then has been done thought for a 3D client and thrown in the 2D client as if it would work. Of course it doesn't fit. There are nice models for that can be re-used if rendered properly (with good contrasts and a clean outline).

 

[copycon]

My friend thought it was dead because he stopped caring about UO when he understood how bad the PvP system was. It wasn't a secret how people were sick of groups of PK waiting at the exit of town to gank defenseless newbies, every magazine talking about UO mentioned it. Add to that the fact that being European on a US server would make you ping badly in an already slow connections era. Not very incentive to know you'll have to try to play despite of the griefers when you already swing your sword twice less than your enemy and you can't run away from them.


Now for the current state of the game, I think it's a cumulation of mistakes tackling a great game. There's the Third Dawn client, AoS Diabloization, lots of unfinished features, lame lottery systems, misdirection for the two attempts to modernize the client, all that in a very large game with lots of possible activities and content that new MMORPGs often try to partially copy (but it's always very limited), an awesome gameplay for roleplaying. I've just never seen any other game giving as many tools to roleplayers.
But like any other MMORPG, it's more and more difficult for it renew its playerbase. And it's not news that whatever the quality is, there'll be players leaving the game. I'm not sure UO has more difficulty to renew its playerbase than any other MMORPG though. Past a number of years, it won't regrow.


There I give you my vision of the current state of UO. And if you ask me what should be done, I'll answer you (even if you're not asking in fact) that certainly not crying about the past and how it was great back then. Yes, there was a time when I was able to play forever with a rock, but mind you, we all change. What should be done is a merge of server to lessen costs and have more active players together, advertize the game for what it is even if I know it's the last thing you have the right to spend money on, and lower the subscription fee.
Then stop wasting time and resource to recreate what's already good with a fake 3D client. For a quality 2D client, re-render the original models to have a better definition and 32bits colors, and then there are a lot of creatures and equipment to add in 2D, as the creation of art for 2D stopped with Third Dawn and everything since then has been done thought for a 3D client and thrown in the 2D client as if it would work. Of course it doesn't fit. There are nice models for that can be re-used if rendered properly (with good contrasts and a clean outline).

Those are good comments and good ideas. I agree that it is very possible to modernize the 2D client rather than trying to make some 3D debauchery that obviously is much harder than it sounds to adapt to an older engine.

I believe UO can win players over and maintain their interest again, but it is a matter of getting them (back) into the door, and quality gameplay is essential to do that. Not only client graphics or a new "land" because those things lose their luster quickly, are time consuming, make the community more sparse and are easily outdone. But, to provide an actual reason to play UO again for a different experience, and I still think a Classic Shard (while off topic) is an excellent way to do that. Content is one thing, and immersive gameplay while it relies on quality content is crucial and completely different from the vast majority of MMOs.

 

[Tjalle]

Sounds like a lot of weak excuses to me. There is effectively no difference between a guild with a set of agreed rules and a shard with the same rules coded.

Of course there is.

- Too much land mass.
- Hideous neon crap.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches).
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc.
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players.

...

Call it "forum griefing" if you will.

- Too much land mass. <- no one is forcing you to go outside trammel
- Hideous neon crap. <- wear darksunglasses or turn down or off colour on your monitor.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches). <- killing monsters that are now easy to kill wasnt easy then
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc. <- no one is forcing anyone to use them
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players. <- turn down/off colour on monitors or wear dark sunglasses

Seriously these are just the weakest excuses ever. Awww nooooes, I cant play the game anymore because someone has a neon sword. Help Help.

Again I challenge any 1998 fanboi to start a "old school" guild and prove conclusively that this "massive" demand exists. It only takes 1 minute to do. Go For It.

Please use the ignore list if you think anyone is griefing or stalking you.

It´s apparent you have no clue of what it is that the pro-Classic people want.

But please, keep posting your "solution". It amuses me although not in the way you´d want it to.

Fayled Dhreams tagged pro-Classic people as "sore losers" but reading these threads makes me wonder if that tag (behavior wise) doesn´t belong on the other side of the fence...

 

[Skrag]

What is a drove exactly, can you put a real number on it without making one up?

Sorry chuckles, but I provided you direct quotation from a UO developer of the era telling you that PK was causing an alarming number of people to quit, that Trammel worked, and that it increased subscribers and retention, short and long term, even if you look at only America. That's pretty much the whole enchilada. You can cry that he said "droves" and not an exact number, but we know it was a lot, and we know Trammel was very good for their business.

Meanwhile you're clinging to the fantasy that if UO had spent another couple years tinkering with the murder count system, then they would have hit just the right solution and it would have been even more popular. But where's the proof that such a system would ever be popular at all? It's been ten years, where's the virtual-worldy crime and punishment game that UO should be re-learning lessons from because it's a huge success?

All I see is the same small group of people begging a 13 year old MMO to please add a novelty shard for them to play on, because they have nowhere else to play besides a few free pirate servers.

 

[copycon]

Meanwhile you're clinging to the fantasy that if UO had spent another couple years tinkering with the murder count system, then they would have hit just the right solution and it would have been even more popular. But where's the proof that such a system would ever be popular at all? It's been ten years, where's the virtual-worldy crime and punishment game that UO should be re-learning lessons from because it's a huge success?

EVE Online, Shadowbane, Darkfall and Mortal Online all have open PvP concepts. They do have slightly different approaches to open PvP than UO did, but all are still popular while UO is not. What does that tell you?

Oh, and I forgot to mention other popular "Classic" free shards and other more popular MMOs that include dedicated PvP servers.

 

[Tazar]

EVE Online, Shadowbane, Darkfall and Mortal Online all have open PvP concepts. They do have slightly different approaches to open PvP than UO did, but all are still popular while UO is not. What does that tell you?

Look up Shadowbane's wikipedia file...

Shadowbane was a free fantasy computer role-playing game (MMORPG) created by Wolfpack Studios and published on March 25, 2003 by Ubisoft for Windows and Mac platforms. Originally commercial and subscription-driven, Shadowbane was launched in March 2003, and was the creation of text-MUD veterans J. Todd Coleman, James Nance, Josef Hall, Patrick Blanton and Robert Marsa and a team of 45 programmers, designers and artists. It closed on July 1, 2009.

What does that tell you? Bad example...

 

[copycon]

I guess so... Scratch that. haha

 

[Kylas]

I played Atlantic and I'm sorry I dont remember these DROVES of PK's Killing and pillaging, I do remember on occasion being killed BUT its part of the game.

PK's where never out of control. They added a great level of excitement to the game. Nothing got the heart pumping faster then seeing a red come up, knowing something was likely to happen. Nothing was more rewarding then making one take a dirt nap and getting the knife out.

The carebear mentality adopted by the developers which split the community and removed the risk impacted the community the most. If there was a fatal moment that took a game with potential and rendered it irrelevant. That was the moment.

Dig

 

[Coppelia]

You can scratch Darkfall and Mortal, as they are failures. And of course EvE has nothing to do in the list as its PvP system is entirely different. It doesn't revolve, near or far, around PKs and anti-PKs. The game is sliced in sectors with different security levels, from the immediate guardwhacking zone to the FFA area. You can't PK in high security sectors, just like Trammel. You can't grief in FFA sectors because everybody knows why they are there and are able to retaliate. EvE being "guild"-based, the solo griefer can't do anything. And if in low security sector you just pay attention to strangers, in 0 security sectors anyone you don't know is an enemy.
Yes, EvE's PvP system works. Not UO's one. Lineage II's PvP system works. Not UO's one.

The game copying UO's old days are closed or in very bad shape, and that without having flown very long.

 

[Skrag]

EVE Online,

An initial giant money-losing flop, the game's developers bought it back from the publishers for pennies on the dollar, and then slowly built it into a moderate success with a vast relatively safe zone surrounded by outlying PVP areas.

Shadowbane

Shadowbane was the Great White Hope of the PK types after Trammel hit. Oh so many posts amounting to "Screw you carebears, Shadowbane is going to kill this game!" And yet now it's dead and in it's grave while UO trudges onward. This was a terrible example to bring up.

Darkfall and Mortal Online

Indie flops. I'd bet real money that both of these put together have only a fraction the players of current-day UO, despite being a decade newer.

 

[ingsmsico]

Pretty simple question. Garriot commented that there are EQ model games, now dominating the market, and there are UO model games, of currently none exist - contemporary Ultima Online included.

What if UO stayed true to itself and kept its model intact? I'm talking Classic UO, but with the problems it had solved without turning to the EQ model. What would that look like today?

A few problems, not all, problems that Classic UO had:
1. No PvE endgame
2. No PvP endgame
3. PK's everywhere and no anti-pk'ers.
4. Quests/Storyline? What about the virtues?
5. Solution to macro'ers.

How would you solve the problems? Would you play a server that found a way to solve all of those problems while still keeping all the things we loved about Ultima Online intact?

I would.

don't know what you are talking about. UO's end game always was and still is PvP

also "macro'ers" as you put it have never been a problem. exploiting and gold farming are/were.

 

[Aragon100]

You can scratch Darkfall and Mortal, as they are failures. And of course EvE has nothing to do in the list as its PvP system is entirely different. It doesn't revolve, near or far, around PKs and anti-PKs. The game is sliced in sectors with different security levels, from the immediate guardwhacking zone to the FFA area. You can't PK in high security sectors, just like Trammel. You can't grief in FFA sectors because everybody knows why they are there and are able to retaliate. EvE being "guild"-based, the solo griefer can't do anything. And if in low security sector you just pay attention to strangers, in 0 security sectors anyone you don't know is an enemy.
Yes, EvE's PvP system works. Not UO's one. Lineage II's PvP system works. Not UO's one.

The game copying UO's old days are closed or in very bad shape, and that without having flown very long.

Mortal Online was Starvaults first game. Taking on a too big game with unexperienced and small team isnt the best sollution.

Darkfall with Aventurine were a similar experience. Both these companies are indie companies that can in no way be compared with Blizzard or EA/Mythic.

There havent been one AAA company that followed the UO pre-AoS PvP system and thats why we havent seen any succesful follower of classic UO.

The interest for such a game is there though, just look at the numbers of forum followers Darkfall had, 367 542, not bad at all.

UO after trammel worked well on the Europe server and was not a failure. Best PvP system ever seen in a MMO. There was alot of consequences for PK:s dying in statloss. So the alignment system was there and working as intended.

I actually challenge you to name a MMO game with as hard consequences for PK:s as UO with statloss.

 

[Coppelia]

UO devs didn't have the experience either, and it didn't work. With more experience, what did they do? Trammel and/or quit Origin. The problem of Adventurine and co is that they didn't learn from the mistakes of others. It's often the case in the gaming industry, there's always a director knowing better than everybody... when the director isn't just discovering a system and wants the same thing for his game.

Koreans did a good PvP system. The key was to put the bad PKs at their place : isolated asocial griefers and not the center of the whole system. In their games PKing is just a tool, an exceptional solution for a given situation, not a valid gamestyle. In consequence, the road of PKs is a dead-end. They're just killing themselves for nothing.
It's not just about the direct consequences like statloss. Of course statloss is very hard. But there's no need for that when your PvP system is well-thought and adapted to the whole game right from the start.

 

[virindiER]

Geez... and I got a warning for "trolling". Enough with the frigging debates about classic shards, UO:R, AOS et al. Yeah, I know... "Put them on ignore". DONE! Damn shame about all of the helpful info that will limit though, don't ya think? Maybe another forum, and thus the ad revenue that they will get (HINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) will be less tolerant of the incessant GD classic shard blathering!

Trolling again.

 

[virindiER]

The problem of Adventurine and co is that they didn't learn from the mistakes of others.

The problem with AV is that their games is all about killing other people. When you aren't killing other people, everything revolves around preparing to kill other people.

I think their game would be a huge hit if they had half as much sand as UO did, and maybe something else to do besides killing other people / preparing to kill other people.

 

[HD2300]

Sounds like a lot of weak excuses to me. There is effectively no difference between a guild with a set of agreed rules and a shard with the same rules coded.

Of course there is.

- Too much land mass.
- Hideous neon crap.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches).
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc.
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players.

...

Call it "forum griefing" if you will.

- Too much land mass. <- no one is forcing you to go outside trammel
- Hideous neon crap. <- wear darksunglasses or turn down or off colour on your monitor.
- AoS item properties (sure, you can play with GM made gear, but you will only be able to fight orcs and such...you will even die immediately to liches). <- killing monsters that are now easy to kill wasnt easy then
- Special moves, skills over 100, new skills, etc. <- no one is forcing anyone to use them
- Having to look at eyesore houses and eyesore players. <- turn down/off colour on monitors or wear dark sunglasses

Seriously these are just the weakest excuses ever. Awww nooooes, I cant play the game anymore because someone has a neon sword. Help Help.

Again I challenge any 1998 fanboi to start a "old school" guild and prove conclusively that this "massive" demand exists. It only takes 1 minute to do. Go For It.

It´s apparent you have no clue of what it is that the pro-Classic people want.
...

Just another excuse.

You can create a "Classic" guild now with whatever rules you want, and it only takes 1 minute, but it seems like no pro-Classic person is going to take up the challenge to prove conclusively the "massive" pay to play Classic demand really exists. So much for all the noise about "thousands upon thousands" who will pay to play Classic.

 

[Babble]

An initial giant money-losing flop, the game's developers bought it back from the publishers for pennies on the dollar, and then slowly built it into a moderate success with a vast relatively safe zone surrounded by outlying PVP areas.



Shadowbane was the Great White Hope of the PK types after Trammel hit. Oh so many posts amounting to "Screw you carebears, Shadowbane is going to kill this game!" And yet now it's dead and in it's grave while UO trudges onward. This was a terrible example to bring up.



Indie flops. I'd bet real money that both of these put together have only a fraction the players of current-day UO, despite being a decade newer.

PvP games make bad mmos
call of duty and other shooters (pvp game) though sell millions
Question is was classic UO a pvp game?

 

[Babble]

Just another excuse.

You can create a "Classic" guild now with whatever rules you want, and it only takes 1 minute, but it seems like no pro-Classic person is going to take up the challenge to prove conclusively the "massive" pay to play Classic demand really exists. So much for all the noise about "thousands upon thousands" who will pay to play Classic.

You talk crap. Ignoring features like I do is not classic, but basically stupid.
And european roleplay guilds who mostly use gm stuff are/were a few hundred and used gm gear since AOS.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Just another excuse.

You can create a "Classic" guild now with whatever rules you want, and it only takes 1 minute, but it seems like no pro-Classic person is going to take up the challenge to prove conclusively the "massive" pay to play Classic demand really exists. So much for all the noise about "thousands upon thousands" who will pay to play Classic.

Not exactly....I won't argue with the fact that There needs to be an obvious business excuse to make a classic shard, but we as gamers can not provide one. The only thing I could think of is pretty much exploitable, so it wont work to give honest numbers. I don't feel like explaining why you can't really recreate the classic game play in current uo, just know you cant do it "exactly".

As for the discussion about PvP based games...What is there to do in these "safe" zones? I mean...really, not much. It is just like "towns" Of course you could just turn aggressive actions off in towns...basically make everyone immune while in town....Not that it matters at this point though.

No one can even begin to predict what would have happened to UO had UO:R not come to pass. The alarming rate of subscription losses were offset by the number joining, sure....you Never want to lose, and it is usually not good to lose and gain evenly, but still it was offset. The statements from the Developers are just Cushioning, it is not as if they Had to put trammel in, also not even they can say tram saved anything. I have given my argument against tram...I have showed how trammel is not a bad idea, but why this thread is even here when no one can even begin to predict things that never happen, is beyond me.

Think of it like this though...They put trammel in, and UO is in a state of turmoil. Does that mean tram was a good or bad idea? Use only the information I gave (Tram being there and UO not being in good shape).

 

[Babble]

A whole book genre is alternative worlds, so why not a thread

 

[HD2300]

Just another excuse.

You can create a "Classic" guild now with whatever rules you want, and it only takes 1 minute, but it seems like no pro-Classic person is going to take up the challenge to prove conclusively the "massive" pay to play Classic demand really exists. So much for all the noise about "thousands upon thousands" who will pay to play Classic.

Ignoring features like I do is not classic, but basically stupid.
And european roleplay guilds who mostly use gm stuff are/were a few hundred and used gm gear since AOS.

Yes I know of Europa gm gear guilds PvPing in Fel. I dont know if they PvP "Classic" rules against each other in Guild wars in Trammel, but if they did it would be like a "Classic" shard. C&D posted it is not "exactly" the same, but an EA team would never make it "exactly" like 1998 anyway. Also are there "massive" numbers of them? No.

So thats what I am saying. The mechanisms exists now to PvP using "Classic" rules. To Pay to Play Classic fanbois I say Just Do It. Show the "massive" demand for it that you claim exists. It just takes 1 minute.

There are always ok ideas, good ideas and great ideas. A great idea is F2P, which will bring in many more players. I know many agree.

 

[Aragon100]

Just another excuse.

You can create a "Classic" guild now with whatever rules you want, and it only takes 1 minute, but it seems like no pro-Classic person is going to take up the challenge to prove conclusively the "massive" pay to play Classic demand really exists. So much for all the noise about "thousands upon thousands" who will pay to play Classic.

Why do you keep trolling these classic threads?

You dont have a clue what a classic shard was or what the classic players want.

Your idea of playing with today UO settings is in no way a classic shard and is a laughable idea.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

A whole book genre is alternative worlds, so why not a thread

Touche....

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Why do you keep trolling these classic threads?

You dont have a clue what a classic shard was or what the classic players want.

Your idea of playing with today UO settings is in no way a classic shard and is a laughable idea.

To be fair...in his last 2 or 3 posts in this thread, he was not being unreasonable. In fact you are being more so than he. He is saying to prove there is a market for such a thing, people always go with trying to point at free shards. But seriously...people play free shards that are not "classic" so that is not a good basis for argument, plus who the hell goes from something free, to something you must pay for? Another bad example.

I would suggest having a forum or poll with just a yes answer, or even yes and no and we just ignore the no votes. And then everyone who knows "all these people who will come back" can vote there, only thing is nothing stopping 1 person from creating a million stratics accounts just to get the yes vote ridiculously high. I say EA puts a Poll on the account pages, and for some polls (such as this one) your account must be x years old, sure that method is not "perfect" but it will give more accurate numbers than anything anyone else has come up with.

 

[HD2300]

You dont have a clue what a classic shard was or what the classic players want.

Your idea of playing with today UO settings is in no way a classic shard and is a laughable idea.

It is irrelevant if I know what classic players want or not. You are creating the guild and creating the rules. You can have whatever rules you want. Classic rules PvP on an existing shard in less than 1 minute. Abracadabra. Since there is a "massive" demand, I expect it to be a great success. You can do it now.

 

[Babble]

Cool idea paying $13 for a game and then limiting yourself to content and unbalance as the game is not balanced limitation.
So you decide to balance it yourself and then I ask .. Why do you need EA when you limit yourself and balance it yourself? Open a freeshard and there go full out and don't have artificial limitations.

 

[HD2300]

To be fair...in his last 2 or 3 posts in this thread, he was not being unreasonable. In fact you are being more so than he. He is saying to prove there is a market for such a thing, people always go with trying to point at free shards. But seriously...people play free shards that are not "classic" so that is not a good basis for argument, plus who the hell goes from something free, to something you must pay for? Another bad example.

I would suggest having a forum or poll with just a yes answer, or even yes and no and we just ignore the no votes. And then everyone who knows "all these people who will come back" can vote there, only thing is nothing stopping 1 person from creating a million stratics accounts just to get the yes vote ridiculously high. I say EA puts a Poll on the account pages, and for some polls (such as this one) your account must be x years old, sure that method is not "perfect" but it will give more accurate numbers than anything anyone else has come up with.

I concur. Prove that there is the demand and you will get your shard. There was a challenge 6 months ago. Give a business case, and there was total silence. Again here is another challenge. Create a Classic guild and show that there is a "massive" demand, and you will get your shard.

I also agree an ingame poll with non trial accounts should be accurate. Polls in Stratics can be rigged.

 

[HD2300]

Cool idea paying $13 for a game and then limiting yourself to content and unbalance as the game is not balanced limitation.
So you decide to balance it yourself and then I ask .. Why do you need EA when you limit yourself and balance it yourself? Open a freeshard and there go full out and don't have artificial limitations.

Me personally, I would just play a Classic freeshard. But these 1998 fanbois believe that there are "massive" numbers of people willing (stupid enough) to pay EA $13/month forever instead of playing a Classic freeshard for free. So why shouldnt EA benefit now, instead of after the Classic shard is released? Its a win-win for everyone.

 

[Babble]

Bit of a problem I have is that most classic freeshards are ones without statloss, so they are not that classic and very pvp sided.

I still think a story/event driven shard would do better with people though, but hardly any about.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Bit of a problem I have is that most classic freeshards are ones without statloss, so they are not that classic and very pvp sided.

I still think a story/event driven shard would do better with people though, but hardly any about.

I wonder how many of the classic enthusiasts actually want statloss back....Would be another good poll I wager. I think with less servers/shards, more active events, some better ai....basically some challenge to the game, and the game would be better over all.

Less shards gets us that "populated feeling" plus fel will be more populated if there are less shards. Obviously some event driven content gives the players something to do that is not a grind (Although most of our events have been grind heavy as of late). And of course making the game more challenging makes it a bit more dynamic and fun.

There is a ton more than could be done...like find a way to improve player interaction for one. But still, this all started with me wondering how many actually want statloss....would certainly help show how much of this is just wolves wanting sheep to slaughter, although after that statement I guess less people would vote against it just to skew the poll.

 

[copycon]

I wonder how many of the classic enthusiasts actually want statloss back....Would be another good poll I wager. I think with less servers/shards, more active events, some better ai....basically some challenge to the game, and the game would be better over all.

Less shards gets us that "populated feeling" plus fel will be more populated if there are less shards. Obviously some event driven content gives the players something to do that is not a grind (Although most of our events have been grind heavy as of late). And of course making the game more challenging makes it a bit more dynamic and fun.

There is a ton more than could be done...like find a way to improve player interaction for one. But still, this all started with me wondering how many actually want statloss....would certainly help show how much of this is just wolves wanting sheep to slaughter, although after that statement I guess less people would vote against it just to skew the poll.

I think it is extremely important to punish murderers. If that is reintroduced through statloss or something else it is not as important to me, but preferrably I would like to see some form of player justice system implemeneted. I realize that has never been implemeneted with any level of success though, so that would be a whole different path of development which is likely not feasible without some dedication from the current Dev team.

At the very least, statloss would deter the greater majority from creating murderers with the goal of survivability. So, yes.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I think it is extremely important to punish murderers. If that is reintroduced through statloss or something else it is not as important to me, but preferrably I would like to see some form of player justice system implemeneted. I realize that has never been implemeneted with any level of success though, so that would be a whole different path of development which is likely not feasible without some dedication from the current Dev team.

At the very least, statloss would deter the greater majority from creating murderers with the goal of survivability. So, yes.

And this post = Not a wolf looking for sheep to slaughter.

But yes...It would be nice to have an actually balanced environment, one where tram would not be needed to "keep the peace". Although I am suspicious of how many people have actually ever left uo due to pvp, or pking, there is a need for checks and balances. But I guess everything comes down to what is enjoyed with in a game...and I am just not in the "safety first" party.