Learning from other games...

[Lore]

Yes, most freeshards have cash shops with ridiculous items...but they don't have a money-hungry corporation taking a disproportionate cut. They have significantly less overhead to worry about (beefy PC and internet connection). Team size is also less important as the base code has been floating about the internet for over a decade (along with various modules/rulesets/art assets/etc).

Since freeshards are a hobby for these people, any income is pure, unadulterated gravy.

However, since you won't acknowledge any of these differences, the point is moot.

Come on... Can you really read your own post and say with a straight face that you're not making excuses for people? You say the code can't be or is too difficult to make it worth it... but, there are shards that have. You say the team is too small... but there are individuals doing it. You say retro servers aren't worth it to companies, but there are companies doing retro servers successfully...

And I'm the one not acknowledging things?

I'm super thankful for you and everyone here that still plays. I'm super thankful for Broadsword keeping the game up. This is just my secret wish. I really want an official pre-AOS shard. I love Trammel. I'm not asking for pre-Trammel. I think Trammel was a great thing. You can still Fel your way through the game if you choose and there is already a pre-Trammel like shard.

 

[MalagAste]

Come on... Can you really read your own post and say with a straight face that you're not making excuses for people? You say the code can't be or is too difficult to make it worth it... but, there are shards that have. You say the team is too small... but there are individuals doing it. You say retro servers aren't worth it to companies, but there are companies doing retro servers successfully...

And I'm the one not acknowledging things?

I'm super thankful for you and everyone here that still plays. I'm super thankful for Broadsword keeping the game up. This is just my secret wish. I really want an official pre-AOS shard. I love Trammel. I'm not asking for pre-Trammel. I think Trammel was a great thing. You can still Fel your way through the game if you choose and there is already a pre-Trammel like shard.

Again Apples and Oranges... You are talking about different code... what Free servers use is far more modern and well documented than what the game actually uses... they are completely different in so many ways and on so many levels...

 

[Lore]

Again Apples and Oranges... You are talking about different code... what Free servers use is far more modern and well documented than what the game actually uses... they are completely different in so many ways and on so many levels...

Assuming your right, and you're not, why can't the Broadsword team use the different code if others can?

 

[Pawain]

Assuming your right, and you're not, why can't the Broadsword team use the different code if others can?

I do not want to lose all my stuffs.

Pitch making a new server/game to EA and see how far that goes.

 

[MalagAste]

They have tried and tried to make new code that is documented and wonderful... They tried Thrid Dawn ... most people hated it and wouldn't play it... they tried KR most people hated it and wouldn't play it... they put the 2d graphics into the KR and stripped it of most of it's features... to look more like the CC and people still wouldn't play it much... though they have said it's closer to 50/50...

But people won't play a new client... one that's workable and documented... they continue to cling to the buggy old CC... so you tell me what they should do @Lore since you seem to be an expert at this

 

[MalagAste]

Just for one second let say they rip off free shards and change us out to that... which BTW would mean we all have to start over since they wouldn't be able to bring our stuff over since this is a whole new code and won't mesh... FYI...

And all that code is documented and crap... You think there are cheaters now you just wait... if they did that this code is freely available everywhere to everyone... and you think that's a GOOD thing???

I sure as heck don't... NO I'd rather they get rid of the CC altogether and just work on the EC and improving what they started... but that's me and many of the seriously bad cheaters balk every time this is brought up because their favorite 3rd party cheat programs will not work with the EC...

So... we leave it alone because god forbid we should mess with the CC...

Which I'll say this as well the free servers can also run most of the cheater 3rd party programs too as they are mostly built around the CC with all its flaws...

 

[Lore]

Well A) I don't agree with your idea that the "code" is different. It's just that they put effort into it that EA/Broadsword won't. That doesn't mean they can't.

But still going with the assumption that you're pulling out of nowhere... I wouldn't want to bring my stuff. That's the idea of going back to Pre-AOS. You wouldn't have the flood of crappy neon and itemized loot. There are cheaters now so cheaters in the retro shard is just a part of UO. The code being documented is another strawman. That's something you're saying is necessary. I'm pretty sure the reality is that the private servers just fiddled with it a bit more patiently than the current official team wants to. And documented also doesn't mean made public BTW.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Come on... Can you really read your own post and say with a straight face that you're not making excuses for people? You say the code can't be or is too difficult to make it worth it... but, there are shards that have.

For the Nth time. FREESHARDS DO NOT RUN EA CODE. You need to disabuse yourself of the delusion that it is in any way compatible with production UO. This isn't wishful thinking, an excuse or a delusion. It is fact. Take a minute of the time you use boardwarrioring and google UO server emulators. It's not difficult to learn about them.

Having held actual, in-person conversations with the devs, I feel confident that they aren't a pack of inveterate liars bent on snowing over the playerbase at every opportunity.

During the Anniverary, I asked very specific questions and managed to coerce real answers out of certain people. There were several questions that I didn't like the answer to, but that I have to accept.

You say the team is too small... but there are individuals doing it.

Freeshards can be run by one person for these reasons:
​

• Most of the code was written ages ago and is free for downloading​
• Emulator code is far more modular and extensible than the OSI's wombat​
• Freeshards do not have a corporation holding the purse strings or demanding revenue​
• People running freeshards can devote as much time as they want to development​
• Cash shop sales are gravy; they are free to monetize anything they damn well please​

You say retro servers aren't worth it to companies, but there are companies doing retro servers successfully...

Retro/Legacy shards make sense when you not only have the cash and personnel to throw at the project, but the old server backups to base the project on. UO has neither. This isn't an excuse, this is fact. BS has a total of two people who code. They'd need to octuple their staff that to recreate a "legacy" shard and support current shards.

For BS to attempt such a project now would mean ALL WORK on current UO would CEASE for at least two years. All for absolutely zero guarantee they would even break even (and the HIGH probability subs would be cancelled during those two years).

At present, it's simply not worth the effort/time.

And I'm the one not acknowledging things?

CORRECT.

And to Malag you said:

Assuming your right, and you're not, why can't the Broadsword team use the different code if others can?

Malag is, in fact, correct. The code isn't readily compatible. FWI she was right next to me the majority of the time I/we talked to the devs.​

 

[Lore]

Your whole premise is that it's different and can't be done... but it's been done. If someone else did it... it can be done. You're so hung up on one problem that you ignore the problem already has a solution.

 

[Lore]

Broadsword: We can't do it.
Dot: Okay. Thank you sir may I have another.
Private Servers: We did it.
Dot: It's different code, not fair! How you do dis?
Broadsword: What is this magical code they can use that we can't use? Inconceivable.

 

[Pawain]

Your whole premise is that it's different and can't be done... but it's been done. If someone else did it... it can be done. You're so hung up on one problem that you ignore the problem already has a solution.

EA will not allow them to make a new game so 15 players can play it. What you want is a new game.

 

[Lore]

EA will not allow then to make a new game so 15 players can play it. What you want is a new game.

I mean, I agree, but it's not for the reasons they keep trying to say. It's not some mystical code difference. And it's not like I can't talk about it.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Your whole premise is that it's different and can't be done... but it's been done. If someone else did it... it can be done. You're so hung up on one problem that you ignore the problem already has a solution.

Its having "been done" by random internet IP thieves isn't the same as being done by EA.

They can't just take freeshard code, slap it onto a cloud server, tweak some settings and call it a day.

You seriously need to learn more about how this all works.

 

[Lore]

Its having "been done" by random internet IP thieves isn't the same as being done by EA.

They can't just take freeshard code, slap it onto a cloud server, tweak some settings and call it a day.

You seriously need to learn more about how this all works.

Okay, just cus you said so though.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Broadsword: We can't do it.
Dot: Okay. Thank you sir may I have another.
Private Servers: We did it.
Dot: It's different code, not fair! How you do dis?
Broadsword: What is this magical code they can use that we can't use? Inconceivable.

Clearly you're just a misanthropic who doesn't know jack about this topic and is unwilling to learn.

Time to lock this trainwreck. @Captn Norrington

 

[Lore]

Clearly you're just a misanthropic who doesn't know jack about this topic.

Time to lock this trainwreck. @Captn Norrington

You keep being rude face palming and assuming things about me and it gets locked from me making one post in response? I've been polite. Topic isn't going in a bad place.

People are talking, oh no! Activity on Stratics. The thread must be locked. They aren't saying things I want them to say...

He's not walking off the cliff with the other lemmings. Get him!

 

[Pawain]

I mean, I agree, but it's not for the reasons they keep trying to say. It's not some mystical code difference. And it's not like I can't talk about it.

Can you imagine what the graphics would be like if they did make a new UO.

The closest game to period of introduction and still around is Diablo. Their advantage is they do not have the same persistent game world. They have a game world that starts over and randomizes when you play. Each upgrade has a whole new world.

UO still has that same painting hanging on the same wall in someones house as it did in 1999. They have to deal with the world they made in 1997.

If EA felt a legacy server would make money, they would start from scratch. With a vision that was not Garriotts. That is gone.

 

[Dot_Warner]

You keep being rude face palming and assuming things about me and it gets locked from me making one post in response? I've been polite. Topic isn't going in a bad place.

​

None of these threads ever go to a good place.

Someone like you comes in spouting unsupportable tripe and is unwilling to listen to reason or facts and is too stubborn to take a few minutes to bother actually researching the topic.

 

[Lore]

None of these threads ever go to a good place.

Someone like you comes in spouting unsupportable tripe and is unwilling to listen to reason or facts and is too stubborn to take a few minutes to bother actually researching the topic.

Simple question. Have others made a retro server?

 

[Dot_Warner]

Simple question. Have others made a retro server?

Define "others."

Other studios or freeshard operators? The answer makes a difference.

 

[Anonymous UOPlayer]

i will do a quick summary of what's going on in this thread.

some players want to play by a different rules set that doesn't currently exist. they call it 'classic' 4 some reason. most supporting this idea in the past want 2 go back 2 pre-trammel but some in the current crop deny it, & say they want a custom rules set that incorporates trammel & other unspecified things about how the game used to work. proponents say it'd be easy to code by commenting out things, but that's demonstrably wrong. then they shift argument & say it could be coded from scratch like, it seems, free shards are, which technically is true but given unlimited time and resources a lot of things could be coded. doesn't mean they're all a good idea.

chief argument for such a custom rules set....well none's really been articulated in this thread. other than 'other games do it,' but that's not an argument. in the past the argument's been something like "the game was better & more poplar back then." lots of other factors at play determine popular and better is a subjective judgement. chief argument against such a thing is that given that it's pretty clear they'd have to go from scratch it's not a good investment. asks 2 many people 2 pay for what they already get 4 free from other places. & no evidence the idea is a popular one because loud folks are just loud folks.

I may as well say: personally i always hated the aos rules. i continue to. i hate building suits. i hate special moves. i hate resist only resisting some spells instead of all i wanted them to fix bugs & add content, not rewrite the whole game. ive never gotten used to aos. ive tried. i still have fun. but it's been 16 years of trials for me.

but: it doesn't mean trying to reconstruct some other rules set would be a good idea because the cat's been out of the bag for a long time now. for the love of god aos came out in february 2003. that was over 16 years ago. trying to put the cat in the bag is a dumb waste of effort to please a vocal few. poor return on investment.

 

[Lore]

Define "others."

Other studios or freeshard operators? The answer makes a difference.

It's a yes or no question. Have others made a retro server?

 

[MalagAste]

I'm just going to roll my eyes at you once again @Lore and call it a day and a month... because it'll take years to get you to see the light that what you are asking is not only fairly impossible at this point but about as unlikely as Me becoming the next President of the USA...

Seriously... they can't just take code from Free Servers... that I've shown you is completely insane and would be seriously WRONG...
Second... @Dot_Warner is correct... we were there together talking to the DEVs... in person... getting real answers.

So here's me rolling my eyes... and shaking my head and giving up as you totally can't see it...

Other Games do many things UO CAN'T... Other games are true 3d... and have 100's of staff... I'm sure Black Desert (the other game I play) has loads of staff... they put out new huge publishes WEEKLY... I know UO can't do that... and I don't expect it of them.

I do however expect them to fix things they know are broken and game-breaking... this is NOT one of them.

 

[Dot_Warner]

It's a yes or no question. Have others made a retro server?

Without proper context your question is pointless.

 

[Lore]

UO Can though. It has. I mean... we're talking about facts right? Isn't that what Dot said?

How can you say that UO can't have a retro server when retro servers for UO exist?

 

[Dot_Warner]

UO Can though. It has. I mean... we're talking about facts right? Isn't that what Dot said?

How can you say that UO can't have a retro server when retro servers for UO exist?

BECAUSE THOSE SERVERS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM EA SERVERS.

THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE.

Get that through your thick skill.

 

[Lore]

BECAUSE THOSE SERVERS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM EA SERVERS.

THEY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE.

Get that through your thick skill.

See, there's that rudeness again, but here's my second simple question... Is there a simple solution to this problem? Is it really that they CAN'T do it?

 

[Dot_Warner]

See, there's that rudeness again, but here's my second simple question...

The rudeness is because you aren't accepting established fact as reality and it is incredibly tiring. When you don't work with facts, your argument is just so much hot air. Just because you want a thing to be true doesn't make it so. Facts are objective, not subjective.

Is there a simple solution to this problem? Is it really that they CAN'T do it?

This question has been answered several times.

Could BS make a retro/legacy shard?

Short answer: With proper time/resources, yes.

Long answer: Maybe. Night now, the answer is no because they don't have the resources to attempt such a project at this point in time. (To do so would require EA to pour some cash into UO instead one of their premiere titles and executive perks - an unlikely proposition.) They would literally be recreating Pre-AoS UO from the ground up. You can reread my other posts for the reasons why that's wildly improbable.

 

[Lore]

The rudeness is because you aren't accepting established fact as reality and it is incredibly tiring. When you don't work with facts, your argument is just so much hot air. Just because you want a thing to be true doesn't make it so. Facts are objective, not subjective.



This question has been answered several times.

Could BS make a retro/legacy shard?

Short answer: With proper time/resources, yes.

Long answer: Maybe. Night now, the answer is no because they don't have the resources to attempt such a project at this point in time. (To do so would require EA to pour some cash into UO instead one of their premiere titles and executive perks - an unlikely proposition.) They would literally be recreating Pre-AoS UO from the ground up. You can reread my other posts for the reasons why that's wildly improbable.

I mean, I asked simple questions and you're giving complicated answers.

Retro Servers exist, fact.
They CAN do it. Fact.
They won't. Which I've acknowledged a few times.

There is a big difference between can't and won't. And it has zero to do with the excuses you and Malag are giving for them. Blizzard WOULDNT make a retro server. They are now. If they couldn't, that'd be different. They started off by saying they couldn't. Then they said they wouldn't. Now they have. Man, it's like the title of this thread came full circle or something. Catch up with the rest of the class?

 

[Dot_Warner]

I mean, I asked simple questions and you're giving complicated answers.

Because, shockingly, when it comes to UO the answer IS complicated.

Retro Servers exist, fact.
They CAN do it. Fact.
They won't. Which I've acknowledged a few times.

There is a big difference between can't and won't. And it has zero to do with the excuses you and Malag are giving for them. Blizzard WOULDNT make a retro server. They are now. If they couldn't, that'd be different. They started off by saying they couldn't. Then they said they wouldn't. Now they have. Man, it's like the title of this thread came full circle or something. Catch up with the rest of the class?

Nobody has said that retro shards don't exist, that would be stupid. However, you have repeatedly been given the answer why such a shard is unlikely for EA-controlled UO.

Comparing BS to Blizzard is like comparing a server at a midrange restaurant to a CEO. The CEO has disposable income thus can throw money around with abandon. The server has to balance their finances to make sure they can survive. Or as Malag would put it, apples to oranges. The comparison just doesn't fly.

We've known since the move to Virginia that the devs lost a lot of UO's assets due to ill-informed movers. According to Draconi, this included a lot of code documentation and art files stored on CD.

Draconi also told us that there are no server backups prior to AoS (possibly none until after ML). Without those backups to start from, they would have to recreate a retro shard from scratch since so much of UO has been tweaked or gutted and replaced. It's not as simple as "turning some things off." This would take an incredible amount of time and resources for the current team to do. During that time ALL work on production servers would be at a standstill, the only new "content" would be from the EMs.

This completely ignores the required increase in the playerbase to make a retro shard viable. (Current subs playing there wouldn't count.) The "if you build it, they will come" notion is cute but objectively unsupportable.

Just because other studios altered their stance on retro shards doesn't mean BS is in a similar position. Petition EA to invest in UO again instead of just sucking it dry.

Class. Dismissed.

 

[Pawain]

WoW was made after UO. Blizzard games were abundant. They started with a lot larger team and kept a larger team so they probably used a more generic building code.

But the real question is: Did Blizzard unravel the current code to make the retro game? Or did they use the current code and make a new game with retro rules.

 

[Lore]

Wow used the same excuse UO is using. And they did exactly what I'm saying. They looked at the most popular private server. Nost. They even brought them in for feedback. In the end they did use the current code and change it retro. You still have some of the new settings that don't work.

 

[Dot_Warner]

WoW grosses over a billion dollars a year. Blizzard can afford to potentially piss away a few million on a speculative venture (or terrible movies).

UO. Can't.

 

[Lore]

notion is cute but objectively unsupportable.

WoW grosses over a billion dollars a year. Blizzard can afford to potentially piss away a few million on a speculative venture (or terrible movies).

UO. Can't.

They won't. People with a lot less resources have. What don't you get?

 

[Stinky Pete]

If you want a "classic" UO experience there are shards available. Why not just play them? I play them sometimes when I am in the mood for that.

EA and BS will never do it. They are already streaching themselves quite thin trying to maintain the 2 clients and 2 different types of shards they currently have. Implementing more would mean more work and longer publish cycles. I imagine BS is paid to maintain UO, even if a "classic" shard were to really take off, I don't think it would net any more money for BS. But the truth is it wouldn't take off because there is too much competition in the "classic" shard market and the competition is already undercutting their price. So:

Yes, there is demand.
Yes, it can be done.
No, it will never happen.

 

[Dot_Warner]

They won't. People with a lot less resources have. What don't you get?

*sighs*

They why of that has been explained to you over and over. Stop trying to compare things that aren't the same. It's past time to accept reality instead of continuing on this alternate path.

 

[Lore]

If you want a "classic" UO experience there are shards available. Why not just play them? I play them sometimes when I am in the mood for that.

EA and BS will never do it. They are already streaching themselves quite thin trying to maintain the 2 clients and 2 different types of shards they currently have. Implementing more would mean more work and longer publish cycles. I imagine BS is paid to maintain UO, even if a "classic" shard were to really take off, I don't think it would net any more money for BS. But the truth is it wouldn't take off because there is too much competition in the "classic" shard market and the competition is already undercutting their price. So:

Yes, there is demand.
Yes, it can be done.
No, it will never happen.

Yes, this is my point toward Dot and Malag. They continue to argue that it the bolded isn't true though. I've already agreed with the idea of what you said. I don't play on Private servers because they are abused more than even the also abused production shards and they are wiped and die at the whim of the (Hint DOT) individual, as opposed to small team that UO has, that created it.

And Blizzard also repeatedly said they wouldn't either. Players continued to ask for it and it happened.

 

[Spartan]

UO Can though. It has. I mean... we're talking about facts right? Isn't that what Dot said?

How can you say that UO can't have a retro server when retro servers for UO exist?

Are you really that dense? More than a couple people have explained over and over why your concept for new code is incorrect when referring to EA code.

As for your question to Dot regarding retro servers, yes others do have servers for pre-AOS times, etc. Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done. If you want a different/retro UO experience I suggest playing elsewhere - where you will be happier.

 

[MalagAste]

Yes, this is my point toward Dot and Malag. They continue to argue that it the bolded isn't true though. I've already agreed with the idea of what you said. I don't play on Private servers because they are abused more than even the also abused production shards and they are wiped and die at the whim of the (Hint DOT) individual, as opposed to small team that UO has, that created it.

And Blizzard also repeatedly said they wouldn't either. Players continued to ask for it and it happened.

Blizzards team is 100x bigger than UO's.... Blizzards game is newer well documented and hasn't changed hands 10 x ... hasn't lost tons of data and hasn't had the same issues or even remotely the same issues as UO so please stop comparing apples and oranges... you still get a mixed fruit salad.

 

[Dot_Warner]

 

[Stinky Pete]

I don't play on Private servers because they are abused more than even the also abused production shards and they are wiped and die at the whim of the (Hint DOT) individual, as opposed to small team that UO has, that created it.

Well, it really depends on where you play. I don't know what you mean by "abused" but is being wiped and dying all that bad? There will be other shards to replace it and UO will live on forever. Most private shards are maintained by a small team typically 2-3 people same as Broadsword. They die when they stop making money just like the one that we play will. Be happy there are private shards available otherwise this game will for sure be gone forever at some point. Thanks to blatent IP theft we will all have the ability to play UO until we are dead!

 

[Pawain]

Wow used the same excuse UO is using. And they did exactly what I'm saying. They looked at the most popular private server. Nost. They even brought them in for feedback. In the end they did use the current code and change it retro. You still have some of the new settings that don't work.

So you think UO is going to find a source that is stealing their product and ask them to give them what they stole modified and UO is going to plop that on a server and make a retro UO?

 

[Stinky Pete]

So you think UO is going to find a source that is stealing their product and ask them to give them what they stole modified and UO is going to plop that on a server and make a retro UO?

They don't have to ask for it. It is free and open source. Truly there is nothing stopping them from using it.

 

[Pawain]

They don't have to ask for it. It is free and open source. Truly there is nothing stopping them from using it.

You may think so. But an Ethical person would not do that.

They already declined to steal Robe designs from one of these sites.

 

[Lore]

You may think so. But an Ethical person would not do that.

They already declined to steal Robe designs from one of these sites.

It doesn't matter. The point is that it's possible. It's not a Can't. It's a Won't.

 

[Stinky Pete]

You may think so. But an Ethical person would not do that.

They already declined to steal Robe designs from one of these sites.

There is nothing unethical about it. As I understand the licencing agreements of both iterations of the software have no stipulations governing their use. However, using the software would give legitimacy to the obviously stolen IP which would make it very difficult for EA to enforce their claim to the IP in the future should they choose to do so.

Stealing the robe design would be unethical as the design is the IP of the artist and as far as I know no such license was ever granted to EA/BS for it's use.

 

[Pawain]

It doesn't matter. The point is that it's possible. It's not a Can't. It's a Won't.

It seems you have completely changed the way you want this. First you wanted the developers to reverse engineer UO. Dot and Mal told you that is too time consuming.

Now you want UO to steal a free shards game design and charge us to play on it.

You can not change your argument in mid stream and say you were correct the whole time.

 

[Lore]

It seems you have completely changed the way you want this. First you wanted the developers to reverse engineer UO. Dot and Mal told you that is too time consuming.

Now you want UO to steal a free shards game design and charge us to play on it.

You can not change your argument in mid stream and say you were correct the whole time.

Nope. I've said the same thing consistently. You all just don't read or you think what you say I said is what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter. The point is that it's possible. It's not a Can't. It's a Won't.

Learning from other games...
Learning from other games...
Learning from other games...
Learning from other games...
Learning from other games...

 

[Dot_Warner]

EA owns the UO IP (actually the entirety of the Ultima IP) wholesale.

The freeshards don't own anything based off the UO IP. They could create the most awesome game possible using UO assets...but they wouldn't own in it any meaningful, enforceable sense.

However, this would require EA to enforce its ToS and IP rights, which they have never bothered to do. This has always bewildered me, as they must have in-house lawyers who can send C&D letters and DMCA takedowns to service providers. Laziness.

EA/BS simply taking their assets wouldn't be illegal, per se, but could be viewed as unethical. The creators could sue them if they did, but would be unlikely to win. It's simply not worth the headache.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Nope. I've said the same thing consistently. You all just don't read or you think what you say I said is what I'm saying.

I think you have that reversed. You don't want to accept factual reality or follow things logically. You assume that apples and oranges are the same thing.

They aren't.

Your alternative facts don't hold sway here.