I could definetly agree with all of it.
*Just would like to add one idea to it*
Players have a choice of Order or Chaos when creating a character for pvp purposes.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Are the players the reason for lack of a modern UO?
- Thread starter MikevonHammer
- Start date
- Watchers 12
*Just would like to add one idea to it*
Players have a choice of Order or Chaos when creating a character for pvp purposes.
At least we agree one one point, however thinly balanced it is Zosimus.
PVP is necessary to creation and evolution of communities. And it needs to be forceful, although it can be moderated.
I'm glad to find our common ground.
PVP is necessary to creation and evolution of communities. And it needs to be forceful, although it can be moderated.
I'm glad to find our common ground.
Yah man, I am definetly about good balanced PvP
DaoC did it right. Loved the zones of RvR.
Warhammer Online was work and became an epic fail.
Rift was fun at first, then zzzzzz but unbalanced. Espeically when you have players running around in circles and dieing because thats all they know what to do lol.
Guild Wars fun and almost balanced but some templates are overpowered.
Current UO to much item dependency and consumables. Skills are less important. Factions just not working.
Old UO skill based and pretty balanced besides mages imo. Order and Chaos was pretty epic and a good system.
To be fair if UO didn't have players there wouldn't be an "outdated" UO either.
I think a new brand new client in the mode that Grimm has discussed will result in the downfall of UO. UO's strength is the complexity. The game is many things to many different people. Not only is UO many things, but it does many of them much better than the various niche competitors. For example, UO is the only game that my wife and I would both enjoy playing. We have met many such couples through the game.
Sacrificing the complexity of the game to bring about a more modern client would not be a net gain. It would also be doomed to failure IMHO. Before the game is even released the next big thing that has an even better promised client will be on the horizon. Also, unless EA makes a significant investment in play testing, the new client will have lots of bugs as EA will push the client out the door to recover some of its investment.
UO would certainly benefit from a complete rewrite and a more modern client, but that is not in the cards. A complete rewrite would be guaranteed to receive much attention in the gaming press and have a lot of people return for a month or two, but keeping them would be very tricky.
The original game is still there, I can run through the forests northeast of Britain naked (because I died without insurance) and kill ettins with my dagger in fel. I can choose to play the same way I did when I started the game, the problem is that most people choose not to do this. Restricting playstyles will only serve to lose more players.
I think a new brand new client in the mode that Grimm has discussed will result in the downfall of UO. UO's strength is the complexity. The game is many things to many different people. Not only is UO many things, but it does many of them much better than the various niche competitors. For example, UO is the only game that my wife and I would both enjoy playing. We have met many such couples through the game.
Sacrificing the complexity of the game to bring about a more modern client would not be a net gain. It would also be doomed to failure IMHO. Before the game is even released the next big thing that has an even better promised client will be on the horizon. Also, unless EA makes a significant investment in play testing, the new client will have lots of bugs as EA will push the client out the door to recover some of its investment.
UO would certainly benefit from a complete rewrite and a more modern client, but that is not in the cards. A complete rewrite would be guaranteed to receive much attention in the gaming press and have a lot of people return for a month or two, but keeping them would be very tricky.
The original game is still there, I can run through the forests northeast of Britain naked (because I died without insurance) and kill ettins with my dagger in fel. I can choose to play the same way I did when I started the game, the problem is that most people choose not to do this. Restricting playstyles will only serve to lose more players.
I think that a complete rewrite as outlined by Grimm would be no only beneficial immediately, but if documented and organized properly, it would allow for very high quality and less buggy updates.
Also, I know Grimm's hypothetical was a drop back to the 1997 equipment guidelines, but I can't imagine that there wouldn't be some consideration to making the current system of resists and properties integral to the new programming. Any redesign would need to be done with an eye to the future.
Even as a hypothetical scenario, I can't think they would throw the good parts of the last 14 years out with the bad when programming the game... assuming that an entirely new write of the game would be done.
Personally, I think that the code needs to be stripped and rebuilt to correct some of the major issues and enable the development of the game to become more methodical and streamlined.
Also, I know Grimm's hypothetical was a drop back to the 1997 equipment guidelines, but I can't imagine that there wouldn't be some consideration to making the current system of resists and properties integral to the new programming. Any redesign would need to be done with an eye to the future.
Even as a hypothetical scenario, I can't think they would throw the good parts of the last 14 years out with the bad when programming the game... assuming that an entirely new write of the game would be done.
Personally, I think that the code needs to be stripped and rebuilt to correct some of the major issues and enable the development of the game to become more methodical and streamlined.
Had Grimm said that it would replace the current clients, then I'd also feel hugely threatened and might even agree. However, the way I see it is that we get to enjoy UO as we know it and have always known it, but with the added bonus of a new and spiffy UO in addition. I've said it before, but I think it's imperative that it be dramatically different from the old clients. The best way for this to happen is make a 3rd person view allowing people to finally look up into the sky and look around at the world from a totally different perspective. My other concern is that the name needs to clearly imply that this is not yet again another "failed attempt" at yet another 3d isometric client, but something completely fresh. We want people to really be curious and give it a chance instead of thinking "Oh gawd no, not this all over again!" And if EA does this, GET SOME PROFESSIONAL MARKETING PEOPLE ON THE JOB PLEASE.
The UO websites, illustrations and packaging have just not been up to par for a very long time. The last time they did it right was when Second Age came out. I know that must sound harsh, but really - all you need to do is look at SWTOR's or Blizzards sites to know what I'm talking about.
...
At some point though, when introducing a new client, they have to do something to push the older client(s) out which can be done one of two ways... either an immediate cease of client functionality, or a cessation of client support and allow the client to die through attrition (basically no more updates for the older client and as useage falls off, close said client).
To put it in a bit of a different perspective, UO has had the same problem as the US government has had in trying to convert from a paper dollar bill to a dollar coin. As long as the paper bill is printed and circulating, people aren't going to convert even though the dollar coin is more cost effective due to lifespan (6mos (paper) vs 30+ years (metal)). Contrast with Canada who introduced $1 and $2 coins, ditched the paper at the level, and now it's standard.
In order for a new client to become standard, they have to have a real plan to retire the older client(s) whether the players like it or not. If the game is strong enough in terms of gameplay and player attraction, then the client is only a sticking issue and many of the "I'll quit if I can't use <client>" complainers will make the switch even if grudgingly, some won't, but those will be replaced by newer subs (what has been called "churn").
Until the devs can be allowed to stay on task enough to get a client up to the standards we're demanding though, it's a moot point.
1. Get a new client built, stable, and up to or above stated standards
2. Set design to retire older client(s)
3. Stick with said client retirement plan regardless of feedback
4. Repeat on a standard timeline to keep the game within reasonably current technological specs.
At some point though, when introducing a new client, they have to do something to push the older client(s) out which can be done one of two ways... either an immediate cease of client functionality, or a cessation of client support and allow the client to die through attrition (basically no more updates for the older client and as useage falls off, close said client).
To put it in a bit of a different perspective, UO has had the same problem as the US government has had in trying to convert from a paper dollar bill to a dollar coin. As long as the paper bill is printed and circulating, people aren't going to convert even though the dollar coin is more cost effective due to lifespan (6mos (paper) vs 30+ years (metal)). Contrast with Canada who introduced $1 and $2 coins, ditched the paper at the level, and now it's standard.
In order for a new client to become standard, they have to have a real plan to retire the older client(s) whether the players like it or not. If the game is strong enough in terms of gameplay and player attraction, then the client is only a sticking issue and many of the "I'll quit if I can't use <client>" complainers will make the switch even if grudgingly, some won't, but those will be replaced by newer subs (what has been called "churn").
Until the devs can be allowed to stay on task enough to get a client up to the standards we're demanding though, it's a moot point.
1. Get a new client built, stable, and up to or above stated standards
2. Set design to retire older client(s)
3. Stick with said client retirement plan regardless of feedback
4. Repeat on a standard timeline to keep the game within reasonably current technological specs.
Ah. But Grimm also mentioned the loss of some game elements. I agree your plan could work, if the game was left mostly intact.
...
I think what losing most of the current game elements would allow them to do is start down the expansion path again, but make changes along different lines, possibly meaning that as we moved forward, thanks to 15 years of prior history, they can see how the original UO developed, then work to avoid or minimize the problems encountered during those times, thus create a more balanced game overall.
Again, all completely theoretical of course... who knows what new problems would be created!
I think what losing most of the current game elements would allow them to do is start down the expansion path again, but make changes along different lines, possibly meaning that as we moved forward, thanks to 15 years of prior history, they can see how the original UO developed, then work to avoid or minimize the problems encountered during those times, thus create a more balanced game overall.
Again, all completely theoretical of course... who knows what new problems would be created!
Blue text my thoughts...
(1) How do you develop a game that has room for growth without constantly making old skill templates useless?
(2) How do you develop a game that needs to adapt in the PvE and PvP challenge aspect but which is tied down by finite resources for HP, Mana, and the like without making the challenge "1-hit kill?"
I'll say this, I'm intrigued by the hypothetical, but some of the hypothetical I think was tossing the baby out for the sake of the bath water.
I don't know... given my dissection of the give and take involved, I'm not sure what the end result would be, but certainly, two of the key things that aren't addressed are the most important:
(1) How do you develop a game that has room for growth without constantly making old skill templates useless?
(2) How do you develop a game that needs to adapt in the PvE and PvP challenge aspect but which is tied down by finite resources for HP, Mana, and the like without making the challenge "1-hit kill?"
I'll say this, I'm intrigued by the hypothetical, but some of the hypothetical I think was tossing the baby out for the sake of the bath water.
Well, truthfully, if UO went this way, they should take the Siege/Production debate and go the route of PvP and PvE servers. On the PvP server, you're flagged except in towns (and do the five minute in-town flag similar to WoW to prevent the run in/out/in/out/in/out thing in any case). On PvE servers, you can flag yourself and PvP when you feel like it -- an on, off switch if you will.
On WoW, I play on a PvP server exclusively not because I am even in the top 1,000,000 PvPers, but because I enjoy that added sense of danger. But there are people who don't enjoy PvP at all, and glorious communities have blossomed up around them as well.
Hugely interesting read!
I would be willing to give up a LOT for a streamlined and refined game and client with greater security that presented me with more ULTIMA in my online experience, truly.
I am not married to isometric, and love the feel of U-IX, Dungeon Seige II, and Lotro Clients, but I am not married to that ideal either. The reason I bought Second Age years ago, and continue to play is the possibility of the Ultima that I experienced decades ago happening again. Most of the time when we have these incorporations I feel like a die hard book fan at the end of a movie version. Sometimes I find myself screaming at the screen... but... there are magic moments, and, it is really cool when I am not alone in experiencing them.
Our playerbase could have, has actually, gone eighteen months without much support, I fear those days are gone. Too much bottle feeding and not nearly enough reliance on the players and more importantly player organizations to provide things to do has left us junkies, in need of a regular fix. I play both clients, 2d still more than the EC, some things are still just too wonky. Perhaps it is because I still use CRTs that I have not completely fallen out of love with an outdated client that I have had to purchase a license for assist to make the most use of for five accounts.
Pinco's work is amazing and should be seriously looked at in determining how a more user friendly interface might be made workable for a game that offers soooooo much in the way of content.
All that to say it is the interaction with the world and the players characters that inhabit that world that makes, or breaks, the game for me. Take that precept and make it visually inviting and not a complete headache to operate within, while removing economy breaking exploits of many various types and I will be there to draw my sword with, or against, others.
I would be willing to give up a LOT for a streamlined and refined game and client with greater security that presented me with more ULTIMA in my online experience, truly.
I am not married to isometric, and love the feel of U-IX, Dungeon Seige II, and Lotro Clients, but I am not married to that ideal either. The reason I bought Second Age years ago, and continue to play is the possibility of the Ultima that I experienced decades ago happening again. Most of the time when we have these incorporations I feel like a die hard book fan at the end of a movie version. Sometimes I find myself screaming at the screen... but... there are magic moments, and, it is really cool when I am not alone in experiencing them.
Our playerbase could have, has actually, gone eighteen months without much support, I fear those days are gone. Too much bottle feeding and not nearly enough reliance on the players and more importantly player organizations to provide things to do has left us junkies, in need of a regular fix. I play both clients, 2d still more than the EC, some things are still just too wonky. Perhaps it is because I still use CRTs that I have not completely fallen out of love with an outdated client that I have had to purchase a license for assist to make the most use of for five accounts.
Pinco's work is amazing and should be seriously looked at in determining how a more user friendly interface might be made workable for a game that offers soooooo much in the way of content.
All that to say it is the interaction with the world and the players characters that inhabit that world that makes, or breaks, the game for me. Take that precept and make it visually inviting and not a complete headache to operate within, while removing economy breaking exploits of many various types and I will be there to draw my sword with, or against, others.