Heroes vs Villains in UO

[Mark_Mythic]

I've found this thread to be very informative. I especially have learned a lot about what the real issues are by my question about Siege.

One observation I will make is that there are many people in this thread who feel that the biggest crime of AoS was not so much that they changed the way resists worked but that they encouraged a "Me, me, me. Gotta have it." kind of environment. Having the right gear became more valuable than having the right team.

Let me try to get back on track here and talk about heroes and villains. If I understand the perspective of Morgana and some others, I think you want more advanced social structures and political systems in the game. We kind of started that with the faction commanders but I think we could do more.

One of the keys, I think, is to make the game more about building a civilization... or subverting one. Then the moral relevance of an action stands out with greater clarity. I've always felt kind of odd about rolling up into Cyclops territory and killing them in their homes. That doesn't seem very heroic to me. Looting the dead is also kind of sketchy. Not saying it is evil, just not saying it is good. In all RPGs I'm aware of, pwning monsters is just what you do because the monster isn't really a monster, he is just the avatar of the XP god or in UO he is the wrapper on a tasty bit of candy.

I'm interested in doing some player controlled towns. It would be especially interesting if you could make an area more safe though a game mechanic, probably requiring some ongoing resources. For example, perhaps a player controlled town can extend its guard zone. I'm just kind of riffing here, seeing if any of this stuff sounds interesting.

Heroes would be heroes of the town. And they are heroes because they helped the town and a way that makes sense and in many cases, but not all, involved their ability to hit things really hard.

Villains could either be usurpers or could just try to terrorize the town. They might even control a rival town. Hopefully, the interaction of the heroes and villains actually makes the town more interesting.

What I always value in a game is a good story, and UO has many. Even the stories like, "Back in the old days, money didn't grow on trees. My buddy and I started blacksmithing and we blacksmithed night and day until we had enough money to buy a ship. Then we took the ship to these islands that very few people went to and we would just farm ingots till the boat couldn't hold any more. That's how I bought my first house. And it wasn't one of these new fangled houses with stuff like walls and floors, it was a bunch of loose ingots stacked up on each other in a pyrimid I tell ya! If you sneezed you could cause an avalanche!"

Well, I took some liberties on that last bit. But in more modern games I see stuff like, "OMG, did you see my dps? Last night we did Kraken's Nightmare and I was hitting 100000000 dps for almost 2 hours. I practically wore out my number 1 key." That's not much of a game in my opinion, and that is why I like working on UO.

One of my goals in designing the game is to try to foster those memorable moments for players. And those memorable moments don't usually come from quest text or some new item; they come from achieving a hard won goal.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

One observation I will make is that there are many people in this thread who feel that the biggest crime of AoS was not so much that they changed the way resists worked but that they encouraged a "Me, me, me. Gotta have it." kind of environment. Having the right gear became more valuable than having the right team.

YES!!

The behind the scenes (although visable) resist and damage changes brought by AoS were not the end of the world, so to speak...but it was the shift in focus away from everyone having pretty much the same items, but different skills, friends, alliances, etc...to 'it's ALL about the artifacts, items, and gear you can horde'. Now, you need to fire up Excel to even figure out if you can, or should, buy a piece of armor that you see on a vendor. I won't even get into how that utterly broke the economy.

Let me try to get back on track here and talk about heroes and villains. If I understand the perspective of Morgana and some others, I think you want more advanced social structures and political systems in the game. We kind of started that with the faction commanders but I think we could do more.

Factions is a good idea...but again, it does not allow "evil" to be evil. It allows "evil" to fight against other people that signed up for the same in game device...but there is no "good" or "evil" there. It's just dressed up consensual PvP.

The idea of "evil" in a game like UO is something that cannot be consensual. There has to be victims. To equate what I am saying to real life, would you call a person that illegally downloaded a movie "evil"? There is no real victim per se. Sure, someone may claim damages...but they overlook the fact that this person had no intention of purchasing that movie...so in the end, they actually lost nothing.

Stay with me here...

But look at someone like Adolf Hitler. Would you call him "evil"? There were countless victims. People still suffer to this day due to the impact this man had on the world.

That's true "evil"...on a grand scale.

And, as many have pointed out in the past..."evil" depends greatly on one's own personal perspective. I would imagine that there are people in this world, probably at least a few that are reading this post, that would argue that Hitler was not "evil"...because they closely identify with the goals that he was attempting to achieve.

I doubt anything so complex as the interpretation of one's moral values can accurately be portrayed in a video game...but I do think that UO, in the past, did at least attempt it.

Presented with the choice of preying upon the innocent, or remaining 'true blue'...players were tested as to their moral character. The only problem was, it's just a game. So people didn't hesitate to mow down innocent victims and steal everything they could get their hands on. It's a very eye opening result, if you consider it in the right terms. This is where the human condition has progressed. Left unchecked, people would likely result to what equates to chaos. We (they) don't go out and kill indiscriminately in order to acquire the possessions of others...well, most of us don't....but after seeing the result of the 'Grand UO experiment'...it makes you wonder...why is that? Deterrence? Fear of reprisal? Fear of losing the love and respect of those in our lives? Or has mankind actually not quite gotten there? Or have we...and we just won't act on it unless we are behind a veil of anonymity with no repercussions?

Sorry to get all sociological.

In UO, the only moral test that matters, is how we treat our fellow players. And with the artificial barriers that are currently in place, we have no way to pass or fail that test. So there can be no 'advanced social or political' systems, because everyone can simply opt out. This makes any effort in that arena moot.

I'm interested in doing some player controlled towns. It would be especially interesting if you could make an area more safe though a game mechanic, probably requiring some ongoing resources. For example, perhaps a player controlled town can extend its guard zone. I'm just kind of riffing here, seeing if any of this stuff sounds interesting.

Heroes would be heroes of the town. And they are heroes because they helped the town and a way that makes sense and in many cases, but not all, involved their ability to hit things really hard.

Villains could either be usurpers or could just try to terrorize the town. They might even control a rival town. Hopefully, the interaction of the heroes and villains actually makes the town more interesting.

But what control could players have in their towns? Unless these take place in Fel, there can be no actual control. And if they take place in Fel...they will fail because there is no incentive for anyone besides those directly involved to use them.

I love some of your ideas. It is really good to discuss these things with someone that has vision...

...but I am afraid that we are all hamstrung by the social barriers that exist in the game today. It is a shame that you were not a part of the Dev team when Trammel was being discussed.

I'd really like to get your thoughts on that issue...but I will understand if you cannot provide them here.

One of my goals in designing the game is to try to foster those memorable moments for players. And those memorable moments don't usually come from quest text or some new item; they come from achieving a hard won goal.

As you pointed out above...'hard won goals' have been replaced by "Me, me, me. Gotta have it."

It's a shame, because there was SO MUCH potential in this game before UO:R.

 

[Coldren]

One observation I will make is that there are many people in this thread who feel that the biggest crime of AoS was not so much that they changed the way resists worked...

I'm sure you understand that it wasn't about just resists (although that was a major issue).. AoS:

- Negated the need for anything non-medible (Plate Armor, etc.), as there is exactly 0 benefit.

- Changed the game itemization from one of 5 possible levels of magical item (With the occasional healing wand) and simple to understand skills, to a game that requires a spreadsheet to design and calculate a multitude of complex variables to account for even more complex game systems for a narrow range of applications. That's not to say these issues weren't there before AoS and in any MMO in general, but AoS infinitely amplified the issue. Even Blizzard is now doing what they can to scale back complexity they have added with their stats and attributes, because it's gotten insanely out of hand.. And they are dwarfed by UO for complexity NOW. I'd even say Pre-AoS, UO was more complex than WoW is now....

- Did nothing to bring old skills up to par with newer skills as they were introduced (How many melee/dexers run without either Chiv, Bushido, Necro, or Ninjitsu? Why didn't the base melee skills get any "abilities"? Hell, do you really NEED Tactics now?) and outright eliminated the already limited benefit of some (Item ID).

I also have my gripe about other expansions after AoS.. A fantasy midevil game with Ninjas and Samurai.. Paladins and Necromancers, fine, but really.. NINJAS? What's next, the Cowboy class, or the damn space marine since one Ultima mentioned space?

But I digress.... Sorry.. Back on topic..

...but that they encouraged a "Me, me, me. Gotta have it." kind of environment. Having the right gear became more valuable than having the right team.

I think that is a long-standing issue that would require an even longer discussions, but yes, that is certainly true... But actually, it's beyond that. The question is now.. "Why bother having a team AT ALL?" You can solo just about all of the content, with very few exceptions, with the right spec and template.. You know, once you work out the math.... Err.. Sorry. Rolled back again...

Let me try to get back on track here and talk about heroes and villains. If I understand the perspective of Morgana and some others, I think you want more advanced social structures and political systems in the game. We kind of started that with the faction commanders but I think we could do more.

One of the keys, I think, is to make the game more about building a civilization... or subverting one. Then the moral relevance of an action stands out with greater clarity.

YES! THAT is the complexity a virtual WORLD needs.. Not more complex attribute and system calculations, skills, abilities, or monster AI's. But tools that allow the complexity of human behavior and interaction to be played out to whatever ends. The need to create, destroy, socialize, progress, betray.. These are all HUMAN systems. Being able to do "simple", "human" things are what bring a world to life.

It's not the arrangement of 50+ magical properties and 30+ skills that make a world.. Politics, territory, nation building, family, city building, crafting, war, peace, love, hate... THAT is what makes a true WORLD.


Isn't that what UO started out as to begin with? A social experiment?

I'm interested in doing some player controlled towns. It would be especially interesting if you could make an area more safe though a game mechanic, probably requiring some ongoing resources. For example, perhaps a player controlled town can extend its guard zone. I'm just kind of riffing here, seeing if any of this stuff sounds interesting.

Heroes would be heroes of the town. And they are heroes because they helped the town and a way that makes sense and in many cases, but not all, involved their ability to hit things really hard.

Villains could either be usurpers or could just try to terrorize the town. They might even control a rival town. Hopefully, the interaction of the heroes and villains actually makes the town more interesting.

Dear god YES, this sounds interesting. THIS is a perfect example of what will, quite literally, BUILD a COMMUNITY again. Crafters harvest resources, players hunt monsters for gold, and PvP'ers defend against other aggressive or warred towns and factions... EVERYONE is important.. EVERYONE is working towards a common goal.

Did you see the link for my expansion idea? This is the very basic, grass roots of it. Territory control. And with territory control comes a REASON to control towns, and DIFFERENT reasons for each.

There must be a tangible benefit to all who participate, and an object of desire that could be lost to someone else, but this must be done in such a way that NOT participating does not impact your play style. It should be opt-in, like factions, where you have to pick a "team" and only be able to change teams in a limited fashion to keep it from being exploited. In my expansion idea, I called it the Allegiance system.

For example, in my system, let's say you are a citizen of Trinsic. Your contribution through various means is measured, and gives you access to fluff items (Pieces of clothing with no stats, housing decorations unique to your city, or a sword that looks cool, but functions identically to say, a longsword, etc., etc.) and items that help your character, but not in such a way that it makes you overpowered. Think Library Collection, if it helps you visualize it.

Let's say as a citizen of Trinsic, once you hit a certain mark, you could buy Bind on Pickup (For this character or account ONLY - Can not be sold or traded) aclarity scrolls or 110 power scrolls for certain melee skills (at VERY high prices - Wouldn't want it to replace what players gather and sell.. Also makes a great money sink). But the availability of this vendor(s) is tied to upkeep and your individual contribution.

Now also, lets go a little further. More than buy scrolls and fluff, you have a permanent +5 to a skill of your choice (that counts towards your cap.. again, not overpowering the player, but giving them flexibility), and any crafter who imbues armor has a +5% chance of successfully imbuing or chance at success/exceptional quality as long as you hold a relic or artifact of the city, or control a certain landmark or outpost.. Another city has one for magic skills and imbuing and crafting jewelery.. Now you have something your city wants to protect, and something your city wants to take from someone else. You have teamwork, objectives, tension, rewards, loss.... for ALL play styles.

I could go on, and on... But I'll stop.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, will keep a player involved in a game more than making them feel like they contribute to and shape the world around them. And when those who contribute are gone, they are actually MISSED.

When someone leaves UO now.. Does anyone except the very few people they knew actually care?

What I always value in a game is a good story, and UO has many. Even the stories like, "Back in the old days, money didn't grow on trees. My buddy and I started blacksmithing and we blacksmithed night and day until we had enough money to buy a ship. Then we took the ship to these islands that very few people went to and we would just farm ingots till the boat couldn't hold any more. That's how I bought my first house. And it wasn't one of these new fangled houses with stuff like walls and floors, it was a bunch of loose ingots stacked up on each other in a pyrimid I tell ya! If you sneezed you could cause an avalanche!"

Well, I took some liberties on that last bit. But in more modern games I see stuff like, "OMG, did you see my dps? Last night we did Kraken's Nightmare and I was hitting 100000000 dps for almost 2 hours. I practically wore out my number 1 key." That's not much of a game in my opinion, and that is why I like working on UO.

One of my goals in designing the game is to try to foster those memorable moments for players. And those memorable moments don't usually come from quest text or some new item; they come from achieving a hard won goal.

.. Can I get an "Amen"?



And I'd make an addendum to your thought.. The most memorable moments don't usually come from quest text or some new item; they come from achieving a hard won goal with others who will share their sense of achievement and memories.

Memories mean more than pixels. I still remember the invasion of Trinsic, not because it was a first, but because of what the guild I was in did, the role we all played, and how we decided to play. I can still remember the name of the weapon crafter in Dark Age of Camelot on my server/faction who was the first to hit max skill, because so many people who went to RvR needed him for equipment. I can still remember the conversations I had with another miner when the game started as we discussed what we would do as we progressed.. First to own a keep, etc...

Memories are powerful.. They are what form your identity as a person, and keep you steady in a world when everything around you is constantly changing. And the ones that matter, the ones that really affect you, are seldom made alone.

From a practical standpoint, I'll end with this. The memories I made when UO was launched until the day I left to try other games are the only real reason I still play or care about it at all. I have an investment in the game, and the more you can make a player feel like they have a real investment in your world by making them a part of it, the longer you will keep them, and the more successful and profitable a game will be.

 

[Mark_Mythic]

Factions is a good idea...but again, it does not allow "evil" to be evil. It allows "evil" to fight against other people that signed up for the same in game device...but there is no "good" or "evil" there. It's just dressed up consensual PvP.

The idea of "evil" in a game like UO is something that cannot be consensual. There has to be victims. ...

This has to be done VERY carefully. Making a game more fun for one person by making it less fun for everyone else is a really bad idea.

I have some ideas in this area, some of them are upcoming in the next live event.

We are about to have an experimental shard and that is going to do me a world of good. Not saying everything we put on it will be a gem, just that we will be able to try stuff that until now has been impossible due to the amount of risk.

But what control could players have in their towns? Unless these take place in Fel, there can be no actual control. And if they take place in Fel...they will fail because there is no incentive for anyone besides those directly involved to use them.

There are other ways to be bad than murder, but any non-consensual pvp will continue to be confined to Fel. I think one challenge going forward is to make being in Fel more fun... not just for pwning crafters.

...but I am afraid that we are all hamstrung by the social barriers that exist in the game today. It is a shame that you were not a part of the Dev team when Trammel was being discussed.

I'd really like to get your thoughts on that issue...but I will understand if you cannot provide them here.

I don't think it would be appropriate or even reasonable for me to second guess a decision made in 2003. I know that a lot of the decisions made at that time were being influenced by Diablo 2, which was a major competitor. I think we all can look back and go, "that should have been done differently" but as a live game designer, it is my responsibility to work on the game as it is today and try to make improvements.

I am reminded of a quote from Gandalf, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." I tell you I'm going to try to make the existing game better, but I would humbly assume that this same sentiment was felt by most of the AoS designers in 2003. I guess we will have to wait and see what they say in 2017.

I have a lot of confidence in the existing team and the existing management of UO. I guess we will need to wait 7 more years to see if our work holds up to the test of time.

 

[Lorax_Pacific]

I still think freedom comes from the ownership of land and resources. Evil is derived at encroachment of those liberties by evil means. Does this work for a game?

Could players actually buy tile territory including dungeons, or maybe lease it? Then evil occurs at the interface of where liberty is taken by the evil. The system would then need mechanisms of feedback into the system positively or negatively to challenge those liberties and dispel evil. However, monopolizing tiles would be limited and easements would be required as necessary, but in a methodological way.

-Lorax

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

This has to be done VERY carefully. Making a game more fun for one person by making it less fun for everyone else is a really bad idea.

True...but when Trammel was put in, this is exactly what was done. For PKs and Anti-PKs, the game was essentially ruined...all to enhance the enjoyment of those that didn't want non-con PvP.

It's a catch 22. You can't make changes to a game that already has a playerbase without stepping on someone's neck. Unfortunately for me, I was one of the people whose neck was stepped on. So from my end, your statement holds little credence...because it was done to me once before.

We are about to have an experimental shard and that is going to do me a world of good. Not saying everything we put on it will be a gem, just that we will be able to try stuff that until now has been impossible due to the amount of risk.

Interesting!

but any non-consensual pvp will continue to be confined to Fel.

Well...so much for that.

I don't think it would be appropriate or even reasonable for me to second guess a decision made in 2003.

Sure it would...you work for EA...

"EA Games! Challenge Everything"

 

[Zyon Rockler]

Classic server is a great idea but I don't think it solves the problems. Although, it would be a nice addition. The fact is that to me, Trammel is better in that it produces the heros. It is where people join together to fight evil at all costs. Fel is the place that produces cut throat villians. Both worlds parallel pull on each other, holding them back from their true potential.

In Trammel you can't have spells that would kill 5 men or a weapon that would cut 10 in half in one swing because it is balanaced to allow for PvP. So, Trammel can't have spawns that keep the heros interested, so they fade away. Fel doesn't have any law or system to make it an interesting challenge, so you end up with a smaller and smaller base of people that think killing is fun.

I don't think if you ran a poll for example, people would tend to say killing is fun. I think it needs to have purpose besides just being able to do it. This is what brought about my saying, it is easier to kill a man than it is to save one. This is a challenge.

Another problem I think, is trying to sell that idea, like a father and son playing the game...

Trammel-Daddy what is that dragon doing? It's trying to kill me. Why Daddy? It's their nature son, if we don't kill it, we will all be eaten by it.

Fel-Daddy why are you killing that man? Because it's fun. Can I kill them also? Sure you can son.

I don't see the growth happening there, I see it declining. It must have purpose with good intent. A system that breeds good on both sides of an objective. Who is to say who is wrong or right? Both sides will take losses and both sides believe they are doing what they must to survive.

If UO is going to make it another 10 years, we have to find a way to bring the heroes back. They are the population who will not allow for a ruleset to tie their hands and be beaten because someone else thinks it's fun. They are the ones who left because they got tired of trying. If nothing more, even a hero needs faith.

I think UO is getting better all the time and to me it is the best game I ever played. I just hope we get to see it become even better.

Just placing random spawns for cities to fight would be fun. Systems that could remain in place, just changed for spawn type. Build a story of a never ending attack or a war that will last a thousand years. Heroes can't save lives if they are dead, so don't over kill invasions, give people a chance to organize.

Place systems that encourage healing each other, resurrection for reward, not just killing. Like everytime you cross heal you have a chance to raise luck or some kind of protection.

That's not to say it would really change anything but at least we could of tried. It puts it out there that if you heal you will be rewarded.

Greed is another issue, don't mix it all up. Items do not matter because you will always have items, just different or less of them. Greed is a simple rule of being fair and this can be fixed without going back in time.

Power is another problem. Maybe guilds and guild alliances should be capped so you don't end up with 500 vs. 10. This kills off unique guilds and makes it impossible for smaller guilds to venture into places of conflict. Another solution might be to create guardians that spawn to the aid of the balance in numbers, where you could have your evil guardian lords and good.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Trammel is better in that it produces the heros. It is where people join together to fight evil at all costs.

Zyon...

...really...

...I just don't know where to begin. There is so much wrong with that statement, that I literally cannot even begin to address it.

I am not trying to pick on you, or call you out...but GOOD GOD!

Give me a few minutes to gather my thoughts (and clean the drink I spit on my monitor off when I read that)...and I will see what I can do to respond to that.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

True...but when Trammel was put in, this is exactly what was done. For PKs and Anti-PKs, the game was essentially ruined...all to enhance the enjoyment of those that didn't want non-con PvP.

If you ask me this is a cop out. Trammel did nothing to stop pk's and anitpk's. All it did was to remove the unwilling participants, the players who didn't want nonconsesual pvp. Players who want it can still go be pk's or antipk's, absolutely nothing stopping them other than the unwilling participants aren't there if they wish to kill unwilling participants.

 

[Trebr Drab]

True...but when Trammel was put in, this is exactly what was done. For PKs and Anti-PKs, the game was essentially ruined...all to enhance the enjoyment of those that didn't want non-con PvP.

If you ask me this is a cop out. Trammel did nothing to stop pk's and anitpk's. All it did was to remove the unwilling participants, the players who didn't want nonconsesual pvp. Players who want it can still go be pk's or antipk's, absolutely nothing stopping them other than the unwilling participants aren't there if they wish to kill unwilling participants.

It took all the meaning out of it, made it a mini-game with no meaning to the rest of the world.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

If you ask me this is a cop out. Trammel did nothing to stop pk's and anitpk's. All it did was to remove the unwilling participants, the players who didn't want nonconsesual pvp. Players who want it can still go be pk's or antipk's, absolutely nothing stopping them other than the unwilling participants aren't there if they wish to kill unwilling participants.

You have missed the point of a what a "PK" was.

A PK is someone that Player Kills (PKs) someone that DOES NOT WANT TO BE KILLED.

When they put in Trammel, it took that aspect out of the game, and created nothing but consensual PvP.

By stepping into Fel...you have consented to PvP.

An Anti-PK was someone that hunted down PKs in order to protect those that DID NOT WANT TO BE KILLED.

Get it?

Without the unwilling victim, neither of these exist. All you have now is PvP'ers. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Trammel is better in that it produces the heros. It is where people join together to fight evil at all costs.

Okay...let's see if I can explain this:


In the current system...THERE IS NO COST.

So called "heroes" in Trammel fight NPC creatures...because they seek a reward in the form of either titles, or material gain. No one in Trammel fights NPC creatures because those creatures are "evil"...because in truth...they aren't "evil". They are simply adversarial. They are AI scripts that attack what they are programmed to attack. They have no moral conscience...therefore, they cannot be good or evil...they simply are what they are...like dirt. Dirt is not 'evil' because it gets in your shoe, or because it soils your clothing. It has no moral conscience...it is simply dirt.

Before there was a Trammel...the people that preyed upon the innocent were indeed 'evil' (at least as far as Ultima Online could go)...because they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they embraced it anyway. The heroes that were born out of that era were so because they made a conscious effort to stand up to those that would prey upon the innocent. They were driven intrinsically...not by the material wealth they could gain.

I hope I have made some sense here...but for some reason, I feel like a historian trying to explain the American Civil War to a Swede from the year 2358.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

You have missed the point of a what a "PK" was.

A PK is someone that Player Kills (PKs) someone that DOES NOT WANT TO BE KILLED.

When they put in Trammel, it took that aspect out of the game, and created nothing but consensual PvP.

By stepping into Fel...you have consented to PvP.

An Anti-PK was someone that hunted down PKs in order to protect those that DID NOT WANT TO BE KILLED.

Get it?

Without the unwilling victim, neither of these exist. All you have now is PvP'ers. There is a HUGE difference.

This allows players who want to be evil to be evil in real life. To really make a player really unhappy because of their gameplay choices. It did not allow and player to fight evil since the pk wanted noncon pvp so fighting them was what they wanted. So why bother with that ruleset unless you wanted to be evil? I think for a while players wanted to pretend to be good players however with the larger and larger groups of PK's it removed any chance of pretending to be good. The difference again is only to players who want to kill nonconsenting players. So what? If all the players are consenting it makes for more risk RIGHT???? It's risk verses reward RIGHT????

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

I'm looking forward to that "experimental shard" I am willing to give it a whiff just because there was communication AT LAST.

But I have the personal and intimate experience with a genius AI that makes any static social system pale in comparison. Without it, I don't see any order coming out of chaos, it has to be dynamic ; and seers are inevitable to tweak it.

Yes I was a seer, yes I am pounding on the nail even if we hit a rock, even if it pains me directly. I am doing this because I know the rock is made of mostly empty space, that the hologram is kept in place by people with direct conflict of interest with EA shareholders.

Is that new shard supposed to be hack free ?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

This allows players who want to be evil to be evil in real life.

I am only discussing in-game behavior here.

To really make a player really unhappy because of their gameplay choices. It did not allow and player to fight evil since the pk wanted noncon pvp so fighting them was what they wanted. So why bother with that ruleset unless you wanted to be evil? I think for a while players wanted to pretend to be good players however with the larger and larger groups of PK's it removed any chance of pretending to be good.

Now you are starting to understand some of what I have been saying.

There were not enough consequences for being 'evil'...pure and simple. It was too easy to just kill anyone you wanted, and take their stuff...rather than sticking to PvM...or even more so, fighting to defend those that wanted to stick to PvM.

The difference again is only to players who want to kill nonconsenting players. So what? If all the players are consenting it makes for more risk RIGHT???? It's risk verses reward RIGHT????

Not sure I completely understand that last bit, but what I think you are saying is that PKs got what they deserved??

I would agree with that, to an extent...but again, this assumes that there were only 2 paths to choose from (1) doing nothing differently and (2) Trammel.

But the truth is, there were other options that were not tried that could have worked, without simply 'turning off' non-consensual PvP...and removing risk from the game.

I understand where you are coming from though. I was a fierce PK hunter back in the day...not because of the thrill I got from it, but because I genuinely cared about the UO community...and because I felt it was my personal responsibility to do something to stop the out of control PKing. But in that, I found that there was more to the issue than us vs. them. There was a dynamic that literally made the world go 'round...and that is gone now.

Now items make the world go 'round. rolleyes:

 

[Zyon Rockler]

This isn't about one facet vs. another and even if it sounds funny, i'm only conveying what has been my experience. There has to be many different ways to design map functioning guard zones and city systems that create some kind of immunity or protection.

I could give examples all day of past experience. I remember a wedding where many people dressed for the occasion. It was by a waterfall with marble benches and beautiful flowers, the people decorated and a counselor came to marry the bride and groom. I think we can see where this is going. It wasn't long before the unfriendly horde came to show their power and it wasn't long before the heroes were dead.

Another example, would be The Void. In Trammel I believe The Void was defeated but in Fel The Void still lives, as far as I know. So, that is what I meant by all costs, simply not being able to doing anything as a ghost but that wasn't always the case. I do remember holding a house place with a ghost but basically once your dead, all you can do is watch.

If there would of been some kind of law or guards present of some type of kingdom the people might of had protection. It seems that people just give up on evil if it becomes impossible to get around the human factor.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

We the seers had a plan back then... oh and BTW... where are you all ? Seers of atlantic and other servers ?

I can't be the only one left caring about all this, we had all kinds of people in the team, old and young...

But the REAL evil in UO (and yes I am pointing finger to the gold selling rings again) took over and EA had to react to the political and media pressure because of that story with GM Datura, or Gabrielle, who served as a scapegoat for the real evildoers.

*ahem* duped gold sellers, who didn't care where the gold came from.

So EA did react, by tightening the privacy policy of the game and making it all so official that now no player or ANYONE as a matter of fact could do anything about those players who ruined the game. The cave of Alibaba was sealed tight, nothing was coming in or out any longer so to speak.

And *ahem* I personally witnessed another GM (name removed) who had confiscated duped gold to a hacker and instead of deleting it, he teleported all the piles (yes back then no checks so ppl had houses full of duped gold, so they teleported the house content in green acres and let it decay) I guess his official reason is that it was quicker that way, and noone SHOULD have gone to green acres anyways.

Well that was the plan, to my young naive eyes it was nothing to worry about, but later on I learned some select players had runes to green acres. Again I had to withhold the names to respect the ROC of UHALL.

Without directly accusing anyone it's hard to explain, but they were VERY organised, and had dummy accounts to do the operations so if they were caught, only ONE of them would actually get in trouble. So this is what happened with GM Datura... she paid 3000$ fine to EA and thats it... but she was accused of selling over 100000 USD $$$ worth of gold and items !!! !!! ???

Noone can ask me to forget this... I still have copies of the actual news. She paid 3000 for Christ's sake !!! Then we lacked the investment to make UO better ? Look at all that money that was lost in the hands of REAL evil. Money that belonged to EA because, and I spent DAYS looking at the TOS and the american laws to realise that it was illegal to sell gold or anything from UO on e-bay (which actually discontinued sales to honor the law) so WHO bailed them out ? WHO at EA decided to remove that part of the TOS and let the EVIL do their business freely ?

So many questions before we even talk of villains or hero. I'm the anti-hero here, much like Raistlin. Maybe I know too much, maybe I'll die too... but I know this ; truth be told !

Thats the real evil which became a multi-million dollar industry (I quote Markee Dragon who profited BIG from this), of money that belonged in UO and ended up paying for vacations in the bahamas for people who did NO WORK to deserve it. I know it's a conundrum... please don't turn the knife in the wound. This ruined ALL my childhood dreams, I became reclusive and refused to be creative anymore exept for destruction... I just had to create those barriers for myself because I could not accept that this had indeed happened !

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment, a 14 yo kid who always dreamed of creating video games, who had worked HARD to learn C++ and JAVA and earn the respect of the UO dev team. Who was finally given a seer position and opportunity to test run MY OWN SCRIPTS on test center... and then from one day to the next... after I had worked MONTHS on my storyline.

Sorry we have to fire all Seers, we don't know who was involved and who wasn't. Poof.

And I had to fight HARD to get my companion position and I HOPED LOOOONG to gain the respect of EA as I did with OSI... you all know... no way it could ever happen.

But heroes AND villains got hijacked equally, our plan never came to be. And lemme tell you it was AWESOME, and many guilds were to be involved in testing it out on Atlantic... including roleplay guilds and the infamous LLTS. They would have been so happy it cannot be put into words ; it was EPIC.

After a while I realised that I was the only one who actually cared about the plan that was laid to complexify social interations, I am pretty sure I am the only one who actually remembers ; so busy they were with their evil plan to make thousands out of duped gold.

There, I said it again. I didn't accuse anyone directly please notify me if this post is wrong, and please do not censor me because this is an important issue that needs to be adressed.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I think gold dupers are worse than "evil".

I know what you are saying Ahu...and I know that many people here consider your ... eclectic ... style of posting to be the inane babbling of someone that has lost touch with reality...but I understand that you are often posting in what equates to RPing.

Still...I do not believe that those corrupt individuals have destroyed our game.

It was the introduction of Trammel that did that.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Trammel isn't bad in itself I feel... the fact the moons were red and blued is, back to back without any need for interaction with each other, fighting yet ignoring...

But if you mean the concept in itself, yes definately.

If you recall the timeline well, you will remember that it was the FoA storyline that led to the politicalisation *sp?* *syntax?* of the gold selling and the ethical side of the argument... is it ethical to earn a living playing a game ?

Some will think, of course not... some will think most definately ! Trammel and Felucaa... remember Lord Brittish adress when the arc was coming to a climax ? It was intense, he had never sounded so serious before, there is a transcript right here in stratics... that was SERIOUS... and then, gold selling scandal.

Poof no more British... poof no more storyline continuity, poof no more seers.

Well that was used as clear leverage for the shadowlords to control both sides of the veil in that ! And... yes I am roleplaying, because I think the evil permeated both sides, server and client and everyone who puts their hands in the controls ; britannia and earth...

OSI was breaking up under that pressure, the lawyer to fix the issue were way too expensive, the law was too unclear, EA was drooling at the potential too. The solution was Trammel, why ?

Because with its introduction, all the hackers were thrown gradually under the spotlight, at least the true ones at that. Oh that didn't prevent the spreading of the evil a bit, since the gold selling ring already had billions accumulated in small houses on dummy accounts, the would slowly shell it out and cash in. But it prevented the evil from growing exponentially. It effectively as we experience ironically on earth right now ; transform a true war with a conclusion into a perpetual war without end, generating endless profits for an elite.

Then the game was destroyed, because EA must have realised soon enough that the clever manipulation of the TOS in game and the creation of "broker" websites went hand in hand, that privacy was never ethical in a virtual world. Maybe the shareholders realised that the brokers were making more money than UO itself... someone had to put the foot on the break.

Yet it's still there, go read it at your leisure, the TOS protects a certain class of brokers, while weeding out the independants by making them appear for what they are.

Of course that didn't prevent the opportunists to milk out the independants before they were maimed, and laugh admirably at the situation.

Thats when EA realised another level of corruption, and changed the team, then AOS hit the fan... that is a guess on my part, but a pretty logical one.

Sorry for the terrible taste in word play... I have been appaled that this subject still isn't acknowledged as history ; in Ultima there was always a STRONG relationship between real world of the avatar "earth" and britannia... ALWAYS...

and in UO... no ? we're throwing a smokescreen over that ? I don't think so, I see through smoke, spending close to a million years in the abyss did that to me...

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Originally there was little pking going on. It was frowned on and few players chose that route. But soon players got tired of losing to pk's who had numerous advantages over non pk's so gradually more and more pk's emerged. Changes were made in the game dynamics but it did nothing to stop the coming boon of pks. Soon there were large groups of PK's sweeping through the dungeons pking, who eventaully chose to control the spawns. These changes in play style made the game less fun for those who did not want to pk. They left to go look for fun elsewhere or if they were like me they realized the pk wants to fight so the only way to stop them was to not fight them. The game mechanics offered nothing to stop the increasing amount of pking. This was all fun for those who were pking and for a short period of time fun for antipks till it became obvious that killing pks was pointless (it was always pointless).

People cry about the old days. There are several reasons for this. One is it was a mere point in time that they remember in the ever changing face of the virtual world of UO. There was no way to stop it from changing. Players were naive but rapidly learning and adjusting their play style to what they learned. During that learning period it was fun but once it became clear how things really were it wasn't fun anymore for many. I didn't want to pk or make pk's happy by engaging them. Others I am sure felt the same way. I learned to be antisocial. Pk's forced that on me by infiltrating groups of friends and pretending to be good players yet merely being blue helpers for pk's. I learned. However my fun was coming to an end and then there was Trammel. Trammel is the only reason I am still playing as a direct contradiction to those who say all they play for is the chance of getting to experience that temporary short period of time back when players were unsure.

Some seem to think that a simple change in game mechanic would have solved the problem. However as it was non consensual pvp was increasing and this was causing numerous players to leave. To balance things out means to make equally displeasing to those who favor non consensual pvp causing many of them to leave to find fun elsewhere. They chose Trammel and I am ever grateful to them for doing so however it did not solve the problem for those who wish for non consensual pvp. They attempted to entice players to be fodder for the non consensual pvper by offering greater benefits to players who were willing to serve as fodder but I guess that didn't work either. Anyway now you have a bunch of players who really want to pk players who don't want to be pked but instead have to settle for those who want to. I have sympathy for those who control the game trying to make it attractive to a larger group of players.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess... feels like you have not lived the old days like most of us did.

It was never pointless to kill a PK, and I can assure you that the people who killed me had much more fun overall than those who took self-importance with them and tought time was an asset and worth money.

You enter a mirror image of earth, close to the realm of imagination ; things play out differently and I'm sorry you missed the fun... if anything I feel you should have an opportunity to experience it again by trying out a free shard.

We were all noobs at one point... and going in a dungeon to the "best" spawn was something dangerous, not just another place you pick because you're bored. Villains roamed these spots, and after all, they are the anti-virtue dungeons... people expected villains to roam those places full of riches and greed... nothing prevented you from going to a secondary spawn, which might be less profitable, but at least it meant something to die, both ways.

Sure at one point maybe it was out of control, but that didn't last very long and I played on the most populated server of all, atlantic. I was a murderer myself, and I fought reds and blues equally, I know what I am talking about.

Even back when it was no penalty for killing, everytime a PK died, the anti was squirming out in joy. And ever BETTER... when the good guys managed to get the murderer guildmaster key and a TOWER EPIC WAR ensued with dragons and whatnot and they managed to loot the whole thing dry... they were drunk with joy. For having been part of the most intense part of everything PVP and roleplay, I know exactly why I cry, and what you just said has nothing to do with it.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

Alright try this, take about 40 people to Fel, give 20 people red shirts and 20
people blue shirts. Now tell them the rules. Both teams go at it, last team alive wins. This is fun right? Ok, but after time what happens? Someone gets upset, how? Well because it's human nature to. So now what? People begin to fight. You're a cheater, you suck, then it gets to be about your mom, your education and i'm not going to remind us all that's not ok to do.

So people fight and forget the rules and the game becomes pointless to some people because it's no longer the reds vs. the blues. It's a human emotional pool.

That's why it's important we take a close look but also keep in mind, freedom is power and it like anything else can be abused.

We need more ideas on how to stop the rules from being bent so far they snap and allow for freedom so people can grow and create.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

The people are so willing to give a try to a system again that allows villains, that they would most likely face an unproportionate opposition which would balance things on its own.

This is not speculation because back in the day the hacks were distributed openly on public websites without shame, and most people were kids who only cared about selling UO stuff on e-bay... so by all means acquiring it meant using hacks full capacity. Now it's all veterans mostly in the late 20 early 30 who are looking to have fun ; yes you'd have the occasional jerk, but he's be discouraged pretty quick by some VERY good players.

Now it's very much different... gold is worth nothing much, and the most important "gateway" hacks are non-existing ; only minor cheats remain.

I can even prophesize... that you guys are going to want more villains...

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess... feels like you have not lived the old days like most of us did.

It was never pointless to kill a PK, and I can assure you that the people who killed me had much more fun overall than those who took self-importance with them and tought time was an asset and worth money.

You enter a mirror image of earth, close to the realm of imagination ; things play out differently and I'm sorry you missed the fun... if anything I feel you should have an opportunity to experience it again by trying out a free shard.

FREESHARD?????? WHAT??? Why would I want to go subject myself to that extremely displeasing playstyle? Missed the fun???? HUH??? I am not playing on free shards ...never did. In fact I never played another online game in my life. I play in UO under the current set of rules. I am not wishing for other things. I am happy as a clam in Trammel. You can go to the free shards if you so desire. Don't tell me how to play. I know what I enjoy and you obviously are clueless to that but then pks always were oblivious to what others enjoy. Obviously the game makers disagree with your perspective or Trammel never would have happened. Don't tell me you're just here to drum up support for a free shard.

 

[Coldren]

FREESHARD?????? WHAT??? Why would I want to go subject myself to that extremely displeasing playstyle? Missed the fun???? HUH??? I am not playing on free shards ...never did. In fact I never played another online game in my life. I play in UO under the current set of rules. I am not wishing for other things. I am happy as a clam in Trammel. You can go to the free shards if you so desire. Don't tell me how to play. I know what I enjoy and you obviously are clueless to that but then pks always were oblivious to what others enjoy. Obviously the game makers disagree with your perspective or Trammel never would have happened. Don't tell me you're just here to drum up support for a free shard.

I think perhaps, you might be slightly over-reacting. I don't think he was "telling you how to play", but rather suggesting it as a course of action to better understand his perspective, if you wanted to. I don't believe the suggestion was from some sort of malice or condescending in its tone, at least from how I read it.

And I've seen what a few freeshards have done. "Displeasing" is hardly a term I would use, myself.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

rofl... I made an obvious error there... get off your four horses...

I meant classic shard, of course. Freeshards are just full of desperate players that have been deceived by EA corporate structure, and their friends...

which turned out to be many millions they are missing every month... but thats another story, forgive me if I didn't proofread that... rofl

Oh and btw... there are no villains where trammel has no relation with felucaa. It's in total disagreement with the way the game designers intended it, what UO became... think about it for a while. You'll understand the obvious reasons for trammel if you think about it. This thread was created from a quote on a thread about the classic shard, which I do support yes.

Because thats the only way we're going to get freedom to play a villain again.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

I think perhaps, you might be slightly over-reacting. I don't think he was "telling you how to play", but rather suggesting it as a course of action to better understand his perspective, if you wanted to. I don't believe the suggestion was from some sort of malice or condescending in its tone, at least from how I read it.

And I've seen what a few freeshards have done. "Displeasing" is hardly a term I would use, myself.

Whatever. Go play on the freeshards. I have never found a reason to look at another game. I enjoy UO as it is. He doesn't have any understanding of me. How presumptive to act like he does. One of the big problems with UO has been boards like this where Trammies are intimidated and made fun of and players act like Trammies are nothing and are missing out on the fun. It's only because they are clueless as to why others play the game. Don't pretend like you have a corner on fun in the game. YOU DON'T. Displeasing is the word I would use on this board but the rules probably don't allow me to use the language I would normally use.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

You can just say it... that I'm a villain...

You came in here in the first place claiming you knew about the old days, I said it feels like you missed the fun of it ; it wasn't meant even CLOSE to what you make it to be.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

People cry about the old days. There are several reasons for this. One is it was a mere point in time that they remember in the ever changing face of the virtual world of UO. There was no way to stop it from changing. Players were naive but rapidly learning and adjusting their play style to what they learned. During that learning period it was fun but once it became clear how things really were it wasn't fun anymore for many. I didn't want to pk or make pk's happy by engaging them. Others I am sure felt the same way. I learned to be antisocial. Pk's forced that on me by infiltrating groups of friends and pretending to be good players yet merely being blue helpers for pk's. I learned. However my fun was coming to an end and then there was Trammel. Trammel is the only reason I am still playing as a direct contradiction to those who say all they play for is the chance of getting to experience that temporary short period of time back when players were unsure.

And no one is asking for Trammel to be taken away on existing shard (at least no one I have seen). I think all of us that enjoyed the original game understand that if presented with any risk or real challenge, that most current UO players would leave. Without people paying for the game...there won't be a game much longer...so it is far better to have options.

Wouldn't you agree that having a choice is better than not?

I think that is all most of us are asking for...because right now, we don't have that.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

You can just say it... that I'm a villain...

You came in here in the first place claiming you knew about the old days, I said it feels like you missed the fun of it ; it wasn't meant even CLOSE to what you make it to be.

I was there so were countless others who at this very point in time have no interest in UO because of what it became prior to Trammel. Again you have no clue about others game experience. If it was so great Trammel would not have happened. I wouldn't call you a villain... just clueless as to what others experienced.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Oh but I assure you I am clueful... I was working with the seer team on atlantic and we were just about to implement a great system to rectify it all at once.

MUCH better than trammel... because we felt for the unlucky people who seemed to get ganked all the time.

I have to admit I laughed a bit about it sometimes... but thats beyond my small monkey brain control, now is it ?

 

[Zyon Rockler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9drUlM&feature=related

Well let's not assume that everything is going to stay the way it is now. If we are going to support any kind of growth we need change.

If we wish to keep things exactly the way they are, then we should expect the same end result. Not everyone cares so much about one part of the game. The idea is to create a united world, not one that has already existed or even one that continues to exist but a world designed to grow with a future that does not make or repeat its' mistakes.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Oh but I assure you I am clueful... I was working with the seer team on atlantic and we were just about to implement a great system to rectify it all at once.

MUCH better than trammel... because we felt for the unlucky people who seemed to get ganked all the time.

I have to admit I laughed a bit about it sometimes... but thats beyond my small monkey brain control, now is it ?

You said it.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

If it was so great Trammel would not have happened.

I think this is probably accurate...

...but it assumes that there was only 1 possible solution to the problem.

A lot of PKs from back in the days were exactly as you describe Kallie. I was PKed on the first day Atlantic was up and running...at least 5 times.

People try to gloss over what happened back then, but they are not being very honest with themselves or anyone else. Many players were victimized by PKs...and many left the game because of it. There were some of us, not many, that honestly tried to help players like yourself back in those days by setting up perimeters around PK hot spots, and protecting the people inside of it...but we were too few and far between.

Something DID need to happen...but I think that something was not Trammel.

It doesn't really matter now. On the existing shards...Trammel is not going anywhere. Don't worry...you are safe...no one is asking you to do anything you are not currently doing. If you enjoy your current playstyle, then nothing being discussed here will have any affect on you besides the fact that, if we are really lucky, there might be an extra shard or two on the list that you don't have to visit.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I was there so were countless others who at this very point in time have no interest in UO because of what it became prior to Trammel. Again you have no clue about others game experience. If it was so great Trammel would not have happened. I wouldn't call you a villain... just clueless as to what others experienced.

Trammel wasn't the answer.

I've always said that there's nothing wrong with stealing and murdering as part of game design. But I've also always said that everyone is right, who says, "Where's the risk vs. reward for the murderer who only kills vendors and newbies?"

1) There had to be a change.
2) Trammel wasn't the answer.
3) There was only reward and no risk for the villains.

4) The correct answer would have been to increase the risk for the villains (significantly) and not to eliminate it completely.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

4) The correct answer would have been to increase the risk for the villains (significantly) and not to eliminate it completely.

Yep. Exactly that.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Trammel wasn't the answer.

I've always said that there's nothing wrong with stealing and murdering as part of game design. But I've also always said that everyone is right, who says, "Where's the risk vs. reward for the murderer who only kills vendors and newbies?"

1) There had to be a change.
2) Trammel wasn't the answer.
3) There was only reward and no risk for the villains.

4) The correct answer would have been to increase the risk for the villains (significantly) and not to eliminate it completely.

I agree that in retrospect it seems like that would have been a better choice (or a pvp switch maybe). Certainly had that choice been made no one would be here arguing for classic shard since the players wanting that playstyle would have quit long ago.

 

[Mark_Mythic]

5) Perma-death for murderers - A reason for people to band together and hunt down these killers. There should be consequences to killing people.
6) Fix Factions - A reason to pvp without having to murder.

I've been thinking about this idea, and I find it interesting. Not for UO, but just in general, perhaps for a game that I do in the future.

You have some opt in system for pvp, like factions in UO. This would be essential for perma death to work.

Then you would have the non consentual pvp as just an element of the world... however, if you actually went red (which would not be on your first kill, probably on your 5th like in UO) you became vulnerable to perma-death.

Now, what would probably happen is that the player who turned red would log out as fast as possible and keep that character logged off till it turned blue again. But what if the game only counted time logged in?

Now, you have some interesting psychological elements. You have fear of accidentally killing someone. You have "on the lamb" gameplay. You have self imposed exile. And you have mob retribution. However, to make this work, you don't get a pass for killing a red, you take a murder count unless it is a state ordered execution. Thus, if a mob kills the villain, they all take a murder count... they may not turn red, but this can't get out of hand.

Practically speaking, it just cuts down on the amount of non-consentual pking. Like... you only get to do it 5 times and then you have to take several days off.

I would also think there would need to be a non-lethal combat system. Possibly a way to knock out the murder so they can be arrested.

Anyway, just riffing again... it's what I do.

Less extravagant but another viable alternative to isolating villains is safe areas, kind of like in Eve. That system of justice is pretty cool.

 

[Mark_Mythic]

Another example, would be The Void. In Trammel I believe The Void was defeated but in Fel The Void still lives, as far as I know. So, that is what I meant by all costs, simply not being able to doing anything as a ghost but that wasn't always the case. I do remember holding a house place with a ghost but basically once your dead, all you can do is watch.

*considers what one might be able to do while dead*

Let me think about it some more. Go to dead parties? Be greatful? Possess weak willed monsters? Pick something up that can only be picked up while dead? Hmm... Well, we have the virtue of spirituality that we aren't doing anything with... Hmm...

 

[Coldren]

Whatever. Go play on the freeshards. I have never found a reason to look at another game. I enjoy UO as it is. He doesn't have any understanding of me. How presumptive to act like he does. One of the big problems with UO has been boards like this where Trammies are intimidated and made fun of and players act like Trammies are nothing and are missing out on the fun. It's only because they are clueless as to why others play the game. Don't pretend like you have a corner on fun in the game. YOU DON'T. Displeasing is the word I would use on this board but the rules probably don't allow me to use the language I would normally use.

I don't play freeshards - I play the real deal. Have I occasionally stepped in to see some of the great things other people have done with a game that EA can't or won't? Sure. I watch videos, I read what they do, occasionally log in to some for a while. Nothing wrong with exploring.

As someone who has admitted to have never seen what some people have done on freeshards.. How about you return the favor and not presume to have an understanding of them or us, telling us who have seen and explored them that you have the "corner on fun in this game"? How can you call them "displeasing" when you say yourself you know nothing of them? Some people have done some pretty amazing things. Things that would improve the game here, on the real shards.

Incidentally, I am a "Trammie" as well. I don't PvP, because frankly there isn't much of a reason to anymore. I wouldn't mind it if there was reason to do so, but I just don't see any point to it. From my perspective in it's current form, it doesn't build community, there are no real objectives or rewards, and it's a hotbed of exploiters and cheaters. I see no benefit to doing it whatsoever, but that is my opinion, and I'm not going to pass judgment on those who do enjoy it, and want to see their chosen style of play improved on.

I'm not delusional, and I'm well aware of the problems that existed before Trammel. Was ganked many times myself. Non-Con is not a good idea, and any system should be opt-in.

But much like how you feel that somehow you are the abused one as someone who likes Trammel, there are those who are so Anti-Fel, making people who find their fun in that play style feel the exact same way you do. The extremists on both sides will always make their cause look bad.

Back to the original topic of the thread, do you have any other statements to be made about Heroes and Villains in UO? What do you think would help create a sense of purpose, heroics, and evil? As someone who doesn't like PvP non-con, and focuses purely on PvE, what do you think could be done for your chosen style of play?

[Wow.. I type slow.. about 5 other posts since I started typing this...]

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

What is the legal issues with hosting a freeshard? Isn't that a copyright infringement?

At the very least you have to break your user agreement with UO to play on them. So you start with a bunch of players who have no respect for others allready. Just look at the internet they go and spam their free shards all over. I wouldn't be surprized if one or more of the posters on this thread are merely free shard shills with no interest in UO other than to try to draw players away to freeshards.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Then you would have the non consentual pvp as just an element of the world... however, if you actually went red (which would not be on your first kill, probably on your 5th like in UO) you became vulnerable to perma-death.

I LIKE IT SO FAR!

Now, what would probably happen is that the player who turned red would log out as fast as possible and keep that character logged off till it turned blue again. But what if the game only counted time logged in?

Doesn't it already?

You have "on the lamb" gameplay.

HA HA!! You have fallen into my trap! I copyrighted that term 3 days ago, you owe me $400! (well, no...not really...but thanks for the nod).

You have self imposed exile. And you have mob retribution. However, to make this work, you don't get a pass for killing a red, you take a murder count unless it is a state ordered execution. Thus, if a mob kills the villain, they all take a murder count... they may not turn red, but this can't get out of hand.

I like it!

I would also think there would need to be a non-lethal combat system. Possibly a way to knock out the murder so they can be arrested.

Like the A-Team!

BTW...I love your ideas! I wish there were more like you at home...you don't have a single brother do you?

 

[Coldren]

What is the legal issues with hosting a freeshard? Isn't that a copyright infringement?

At the very least you have to break your user agreement with UO to play on them. So you start with a bunch of players who have no respect for others allready. Just look at the internet they go and spam their free shards all over. I wouldn't be surprized if one or more of the posters on this thread are merely free shard shills with no interest in UO other than to try to draw players away to freeshards.

So it's a matter of moral judgment? Or is it about the quality of ideas they realize? Clearly since I have tried a freeshard on occasion, the money I give EA and the time I spend there and the ideas I put forth to improve the existing game are worthless?

Incidentally, I am not advertising a freeshard, and I'm not attempting to draw people away from UO. UO pushes people away on it's own, but that's another discussion. Everything I've said and done is to bring people back to the EA version of UO.

What I am, however, pointing out, is that many of the freeshards do so because they want to implement and realized ideas that they think are fun.

These people, they don't implement freeshards to be evil or steal money from UO. The people playing them would never pay to play the EA version of the game anyway, and god forbid we try to get THEM back by analyzing what it is that they like that isn't in the EA version in the first place. No, the reason freeshards exist is because the creators have a vision for the game, or an idea, or a passion for it. They don't do it for a profit, or else, they really could be prosecuted.

Now, again, back to the subject at hand, what do you think about the topic of Heroes and Villains in UO? Do you have any original thoughts on the subject? What would you like to see implemented to give a sense of accomplishment and community to UO?

 

[Coldren]

Then you would have the non consentual pvp as just an element of the world... however, if you actually went red (which would not be on your first kill, probably on your 5th like in UO) you became vulnerable to perma-death.

I LIKE IT SO FAR!

Permadeath is never, ever a good idea in an MMO. Why? Because the first time someone died from it, lost all their work and effort PERMANENTLY, they would not be back.

It takes too much to get a fleshed out character to lose it under any condition as it stands now.. However, if you made it ridiculously easy to finish a character, as in, maybe a day or two tops, it might be feasible. But even then.. No.. I think you'd lose a lot more than would be reasonable.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

So it's a matter of moral judgment? Or is it about the quality of ideas they realize? Clearly since I have tried a freeshard on occasion, the money I give EA and the time I spend there and the ideas I put forth to improve the existing game are worthless?

Incidentally, I am not advertising a freeshard, and I'm not attempting to draw people away from UO. UO pushes people away on it's own, but that's another discussion. Everything I've said and done is to bring people back to the EA version of UO.

What I am, however, pointing out, is that many of the freeshards do so because they want to implement and realized ideas that they think are fun.

These people, they don't implement freeshards to be evil or steal money from UO. The people playing them would never pay to play the existing one anyway. The reason they do it is because they had a vision for the game, or an idea, or a passion for it. They don't do it for a profit, or else, they really could be prosecuted.

Now, again, back to the subject at hand, what do you think about the topic of Heroes and Villains in UO? Do you have any original thoughts on the subject? What would you like to see implemented to give a sense of accomplishment and community to UO?

It's not so much of a moral judgement as just practically speaking. Who I would have to play with? People who have allready demostrated that they are prone to cheating (myself included). Villians and heros? Hmmm that would have to be in Felucca? I'll leave that up to anyone who plays on that ruleset.

 

[Coldren]

It's not so much of a moral judgement as just practically speaking. Who I would have to play with? People who have allready demostrated that they are prone to cheating (myself included). Villians and heros? Hmmm that would have to be in Felucca? I'll leave that up to anyone who plays on that ruleset.

Who's prone to cheating? I like PvP, and I do think there is cheating in PvP, but I don't think it makes anyone "prone" to something..

But you don't see any place for Heroes and Villains in Trammel? Surely there must be something... How about slaying a mighty dragon (Like 10 times worth than Crimson)? How about PvE factions, for example, people ally themselves with the Undead, others the Trolls, other the Orcs.. Killing your factions enemy raises your standing.. Now, if for example, you ally yourselves with the Orcs, you can heal them and they won't attack you, which lets you give other players who are hunting orcs a hard time, making you their villain.. You'll have all kinds of ways to be heroic or villainous in such a system...

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Who's prone to cheating? I like PvP, and I do think there is cheating in PvP, but I don't think it makes anyone "prone" to something..

But you don't see any place for Heroes and Villains in Trammel? Surely there must be something... How about slaying a mighty dragon (Like 10 times worth than Crimson)? How about PvE factions, for example, people ally themselves with the Undead, others the Trolls, other the Orcs.. Killing your factions enemy raises your standing.. Now, if for example, you ally yourselves with the Orcs, you can heal them and they won't attack you, which lets you give other players who are hunting orcs a hard time, making you their villain.. You'll have all kinds of ways to be heroic or villainous in such a system...

You mistake my meaning. By playing on a freeshard they are cheating ....real life cheating not in game cheating.

Heros and villians in Trammel ? Hmmmm.... It could be. You are a hero every time you kill something bad in a sense but what more do you need? I don't need anything more. Why should I? It's self rewarding. I don't need more content or reward. If it could make it more attractive to others then that would be good. At this point I am really unsure how to do that.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Well, we have the virtue of spirituality that we aren't doing anything with... Hmm...

Hmm...resurrection quests anyone?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

You are a hero every time you kill something bad in a sense but what more do you need? I don't need anything more. Why should I? It's self rewarding. I don't need more content or reward. If it could make it more attractive to others then that would be good. At this point I am really unsure how to do that.

No offense...but why are you even posting in this thread?

You are obviously happy with the status quo...so why bother?

This thread was meant to discuss a hypothetical example in which people were not spared from risk via a lame game mechanic.

No one is encroaching on your risk-free playstyle...so why do you care??

Ordinarily, I just ignore posts like yours...but really, what is your agenda here? What makes you so afraid that some of us that enjoyed something different than what you enjoy might actually get what we want?

I don't say any of this to belittle you...you obviously enjoy the game as it is...and that is great! Keep doing your thing! Keep paying! We need people that want nothing beyond what is currently offered...otherwise, we all have no game!

I actually empathize with you...but I don't understand your interest in this at all.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

No offense...but why are you even posting in this thread?

You are obviously happy with the status quo...so why bother?

This thread was meant to discuss a hypothetical example in which people were not spared from risk via a lame game mechanic.

No one is encroaching on your risk-free playstyle...so why do you care??

Ordinarily, I just ignore posts like yours...but really, what is your agenda here? What makes you so afraid that some of us that enjoyed something different than what you enjoy might actually get what we want?

I don't say any of this to belittle you...you obviously enjoy the game as it is...and that is great! Keep doing your thing! Keep paying! We need people that want nothing beyond what is currently offered...otherwise, we all have no game!

I actually empathize with you...but I don't understand your interest in this at all.

I am here to speak for the truth as I see it and provide counter arguments to the silly nonsense that has passed for the philosophy of gaming promoted by players who wish to intimidate others from speaking their say.