Imagine a world...

[copycon]

It's absolutely feasible with current technology and computer power. All of those monsters in the Hunter's Guide already a have programmed behavior, though not what I would call advanced AI. There is only one reason that I can see it not being done, and that is Developer and programmer time.

RE: Previous response.

As far as making them overpowered, that is certainly possible and would have to be balanced. But then giving new monsters 30K hit points, 160 barding difficulty, 600 STR, etc., doesn't create a balanced boss, rather a boring boss.

"Balance" does not take into account the impact of these types of changes. "Balance" implies that it is a simple tweak. These changes would require that each MOB and their associated attack tables be entirely reconsidered and more than likely rewritten from scratch.

As far as your last statement, you lost me on what you meant.

My earlier responses refer to the contrast between PvM and player interaction. This thread is in reference to making the MOBs more "lifelike" and my argument is that it is impossible to make the MOB interact with a player like a human would.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

Even if it were feasible, if monsters were capable of stringing attacks together in such a way that would deal an enormous amount of damage to the player, wouldn't that invoke the same response from the player that was received when offensive players did the same thing during nonconsensual PvP combat? If monsters were so intelligent that they could simply defeat a player by synchronizing their attacks what is the point?

Be honest: Today 90% of the monsters are not even remotely a challenge. People even solo the Slasher of Veils. Why do you imply that I want monsters to defeat any player? I never said that.

I said, PvM needs to be less predictable, more challenging and more diversified. That monsters should take actions by themselves (like invading a town), based on environment and player actions.

 

[copycon]

Be honest: Today 90% of the monsters are not even remotely a challenge. People even solo the Slasher of Veils. Why do you imply that I want monsters to defeat any player? I never said that.

I said, PvM needs to be less predictable, more challenging and more diversified. That monsters should take actions by themselves (like invading a town), based on environment and player actions.

I don't think I've been dishonest, but if I have given that impression I apologize. If you want something extra then I agree that a small tweak here or there would certainly improve that experience.

But, truthfully, I think that by giving the players the ability to make their characters so powerful that they can accomplish those kinds of things; those same players have the illusion that the game is "easy". It doesn't have anything to do with the monsters themselves.

Try taking off that armour and see what happens.

 

[Babble]

I think making a really challenging environment is not wanted by the developers.
Basic game concept goes that the player can always overcome the monster to get to the loot.

Some things proposed here do not fit in the schemata of kill and loot gameplay.

Is why I claim UO can be so much more and EA only scratches at the surface.

'Rift' will seemingly try random invasions in different sizes for players, so sloooowly things are moving ahead ....

 

[Megilhir]

On the "try taking off that armor and see what happens" comment.

Exactly!

When I am bored with, but still desire to play, UO I do precisely that.

I strip my toon of all gear except a noob dagger, death robe and (if applicable) a spell book of some type. I even leave the runebooks back home.

Then i head out into the wilderness with just skill, both mine and the characters.

Try it some time. I have advocated exactly this approach a number of times on these very boards. It is fun.

I actually feel a sense of game-accomplishment and joy when looting a useful item.

Unfortunately this may not be very enticing for some character builds. Tamers may find it dull for example.

So use a different toon... get out the developing melee or old school caster.

There you have two cooper.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

Try taking off that armour and see what happens.

Good point. However, you can't turn back the wheel of time.

 

[copycon]

Good point. However, you can't turn back the wheel of time.

Ever hear anything about a Classic Shard?

LOL

 

[Sunchicken]

Maybe I misspoke when I said that it wasn't possible. Maybe the more accurate way to describe this is not feasible.

You do realize that what you are describing accounts for a very small fraction of possible interactions that a MOB could have with a player? Let alone how many different types of MOBs exist (animals + monsters = 302) along with other factors that must be considered such as attack counter measures during combat...

Here is just the tip of the iceberg showing how many factors must come into play to do what you are describing to scale:

UO Stratics - Hunter's Guide - Welcome!

Even if it were feasible, if monsters were capable of stringing attacks together in such a way that would deal an enormous amount of damage to the player, wouldn't that invoke the same response from the player that was received when offensive players did the same thing during nonconsensual PvP combat? If monsters were so intelligent that they could simply defeat a player by synchronizing their attacks what is the point?
Again, I'll go back to my statement about this thread describing player interaction as opposed to simply PvM.

Now i prolly should stay out of this thread because its really over my head, but i do believe i can respond to what i bolded.

Now im not saying im for this, but this would give the players a chance to actually have help to kill such mobs. Instead of just bashing the **** of a creature solo for 20 mins.

 

[copycon]

Now im not saying im for this, but this would give the players a chance to actually have help to kill such mobs. Instead of just bashing the **** of a creature solo for 20 mins.

I agree. If it were feasible and if it were implemented correctly, it may very well give players a reason to group fight again. But, I think the opposite could also be true. It would give players something to "cry" about again because they simply would not be able to defeat every enemy and hoard loot on their own which is obviously what people have grown used to doing at this point.

 

[Hildebrand]

Coming soon... Intelligence Booster Pack!
I'd love to see some inkling of intelligence in some mobs. Take certain areas (the caves of Malas, or desert areas, or islands) and boost the AI in just those areas. Doesn't have to be ALL mobs in the game, just few spots.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Copycon, it is feasible. It can be done. It's not that much more processing that today's, or even yesterday's, computers can't easily handle.

I was referring to feasibility from the development perspective. Not from the ability of the computer to process those additional instructions. Though, I do think that if you factor in the amount of additional instructions that would be expected of the computer to perform you will end up with a severely bloated and unstable application. But, that is going further off topic.

Actually, that's right on topic, I think.

You're talking feasibility, rather than possibilities. What strikes me is that game developers do the same thing. And what's weird to me is that, well, these games stand to make as much as they want. WoW rakes in more than $100 million per month. The only reason they won't be able to continue that indefinitely is because they built in "End Game", and they can't string that out forever. With so much money at stake, so much possibility, I just don't get that developers (financing end, mainly) think in that same "feasibility" way.

In other words:
"We want your money, we know there's no limit to what we can make, so we'll give you less than our best capability." ??
It just doesn't make sense to me. Of course smaller companies just don't have the money or can't afford the risk of the sort of code breakdown and failure you are talking about. But big companies like EA, they only have this problem because they make the choice to have it. Self inflicted wound.

But going back to your last point, "bloated and unstable application". I don't see that at all. Slap another processing unit in your tree. Players want a living, breathing world to play in. You, copycon my friend, may not realize this, but the current games in production, their handlers, they are in a state of almost panic. They are seeing that gamers are not happy, and that they are looking at failure. Because they are making more of the standard level grinds with directed game play. And gamers are speaking out, or just not showing interest. They can see this. They won't admit it, of course, as they continue with their marketing plans based on old formulas that no longer work in a more experienced gamer base. But if you watch their marketing closely, you can see this. They won't even spell out the details anymore. Their web sites are noticeably lacking details of actual game play. Not just the "top secrit" plans, the basic stuff. Because they know players don't want it anymore. Players want "more", they want "world", they want that living, breathing world to play in.

Some of these new games, they don't even have message boards to post in. But lets look at one of them, SWTOR. Yesterday they only had 83 topics posted to their main "General" board. That's an astonishingly low number for a game of that scale. UO had more than 20 here, as a reference. Yes, these guys know they are in trouble. Yes, players want "world" and are tired of that same gamey stuff.

 

[Old Man of UO]

Coming soon... Intelligence Booster Pack!
I'd love to see some inkling of intelligence in some mobs. Take certain areas (the caves of Malas, or desert areas, or islands) and boost the AI in just those areas. Doesn't have to be ALL mobs in the game, just few spots.

I would buy THIS booster pak! Just redo all the Virtue dungeons and make them useable and desirable by all players, not just beginners.

 

[copycon]

I would buy THIS booster pak! Just redo all the Virtue dungeons and make them useable and desirable by all players, not just beginners.

This type of behavior surprises me. Do people really think that these types of changes should be released in the form of a "booster pack"?

You do realize that you pay monthly for your subscription? Don't you?

These are game mechanics that are being discussed. Not anything I would consider to be add-on content or anything that would give a player anything extra aside from challenge in the form of additional game logic...

If anyone really wants to pay for this sort of thing over and above what they are paying to play today then I've got some great swamp land in Florida that I'd like to sell them.

 

[copycon]

But going back to your last point, "bloated and unstable application". I don't see that at all. Slap another processing unit in your tree. Players want a living, breathing world to play in. You, copycon my friend, may not realize this, but the current games in production, their handlers, they are in a state of almost panic. They are seeing that gamers are not happy, and that they are looking at failure. Because they are making more of the standard level grinds with directed game play. And gamers are speaking out, or just not showing interest. They can see this. They won't admit it, of course, as they continue with their marketing plans based on old formulas that no longer work in a more experienced gamer base. But if you watch their marketing closely, you can see this. They won't even spell out the details anymore. Their web sites are noticeably lacking details of actual game play. Not just the "top secrit" plans, the basic stuff. Because they know players don't want it anymore. Players want "more", they want "world", they want that living, breathing world to play in. .

Excuse me for trimming the fat Trebr Drab, but I thought it would be in everyones benefit to avoid the "text wall" effect. Or, at least, more than it already is anyways...

Anyways, I'd like to think that I do in fact understand what is going on here. I also don't think that it is as simple as you describe. The "worlds" of UO contain enough data to boggle any one of our minds, and I don't think what you are describing is quite as simple as you make it sound.

There are many MANY considerations that must be given to any decision that is made that will ultimately affect the player base for the very reason that you describe. I believe that UO is the equivalent to being on life support in its lifecycle at this point, and anything that is done must be done for the betterment of the IP and not try to subtly appeal to the already dwindling consumer base.

In my opinion, changing the game logic to become more adaptable to the player is not even scratching the surface of the magnitude of problems that UO is faced with today. Sure, any code "tweak" that is done to make the PvM experience more immersive will gather the attention of some, and will entertain a minority for a short period, but the fact is that players are leaving for more than just the fact that the monsters are "dumb". They are leaving because their friends are leaving, or because they have the impression that they have reached "end game" which is largely true.

These players were given the ability to make a single character that is capable of defeating every enemy in the game and obtaining as much "loot" as they want with little to no effort. That is the 800 pound gorilla that the developers are ignoring and they have simply resorted to providing more content to players who are already tired of the monotony. That approach will fail. There is no denying it.

As I said, the truly "dynamic content" were the players. Player interaction (positive or negative) was and will never be exactly the same twice. Even between the same players for that matter. That is what made UO unique and interesting, and that is what was removed by the developers of the past in favor of giving the players the intellectual equivalent of "whac-a-mole". Players can only whack moles and receive tickets for so long before it becomes boring and monotonous, and that is the breaking point.

In order to revitalize UO, the developers need to start thinking outside of the box. They need to give players something completely different from what they have given for the past 10+ years. That needs to be more than just fancy graphics or different types of fish. That is why I have the opinion that I have about a "Classic Shard" and that is why I know that it will work.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Classic Shard. Bleh. You guys want wide open PvP so you can fight, kill, loot, and dominate everyone else. Everyone else doesn't want to be your victims. So when they leave, you guys don't even fight just with yourselves. You need everyone else to make your dominance worthy. It's full of fail.

If you guys really believed in the "need" created as a social tool to make a game better, you'd have agreed with me on a working justice system in the many, many posts I've made over many years. But not hardly a whimper on that from you guys. You don't want the "social", you just want the wide open fighting and looting and dominance of other players who don't want it.

I suggest a good FPSer. Or a private UO server, where the same 1K PKers have accounts on quite a few of them. Without everyone else.

 

[copycon]

Classic Shard. Bleh. You guys want wide open PvP so you can fight, kill, loot, and dominate everyone else. Everyone else doesn't want to be your victims. So when they leave, you guys don't even fight just with yourselves. You need everyone else to make your dominance worthy. It's full of fail.

That is where you are wrong. You, and everyone else that thinks that way.

Yes, "Classic" UO did have that element. But, that was not all there was to it. "Good" and "Bad" players had to consider many different aspects of their game, and one of the biggest aspects was defending themselves against the other "Good" or "Bad" players. Also, players could not simply put on a suit of armour and defeat every enemy in the game. They had to consider the repercussions of losing that set of armour, or that weapon. They also had to consider where they went, who they went with, how long they would stay and how they would defend or escape among other things...

Those aspects were lost with the introduction and mass exodus to Trammel. Now, everyone is convinced that UO is full of cheer and joy and there is nothing left but the pink rose petals and MOBs which you apparently have grown tired of.

Imagine that, eh?

Now you want monsters that can give you some level of "excitement", but still allow you to dispatch them with your uber character, and I'm sure that you will be one of the first to complain about it when you can't.

 

[copycon]

If you guys really believed in the "need" created as a social tool to make a game better, you'd have agreed with me on a working justice system in the many, many posts I've made over many years. But not hardly a whimper on that from you guys. You don't want the "social", you just want the wide open fighting and looting and dominance of other players who don't want it.

Also, if you would like to debate a "justice" system, I invite you to do so through a forum post or a PM. I'll be glad to respond.

 

[Trebr Drab]

If you guys really believed in the "need" created as a social tool to make a game better, you'd have agreed with me on a working justice system in the many, many posts I've made over many years. But not hardly a whimper on that from you guys. You don't want the "social", you just want the wide open fighting and looting and dominance of other players who don't want it.

Also, if you would like to debate a "justice" system, I invite you to do so through a forum post or a PM. I'll be glad to respond.

Well then I suggest you go to the "classic Shard" posts, any number of them, to talk about that.

 

[copycon]

Well then I suggest you go to the "classic Shard" posts, any number of them, to talk about that.

Am I failing to see how the previous justice system failed?

Personally I thought the bounty board was unique and exciting, though the bounties themselves were flawed because it required the person who was killed to spend the gold necessary to place the bounty.

Stat loss, town guards, freely attackable by anyone. The list goes on...

What is the problem?

 

[Trebr Drab]

Am I failing to see how the previous justice system failed?

Personally I thought the bounty board was unique and exciting, though the bounties themselves were flawed because it required the person who was killed to spend the gold necessary to place the bounty.

Stat loss, town guards, freely attackable by anyone. The list goes on...

What is the problem?

There were several failures in it.

Bounty boards failed because a PK with a bounty on his head would simply have a friend kill him and collect the reward, furnished by either the PK victim or the game.

The overall system failed because it didn't go far enough.
Basically, for a justice system to work, you need two components:
1) The punishment has to slow down PKing to a great degree, enough so that players aren't getting PKed as a normal part of their game play. There's a balance here, that point varies for different people. The overall benefit to the social aspects has to be clear.
2) The justice needs to satisfy the victims that there is, indeed, justice.

The last system UO had in place, just before Trammel, almost had it. Almost. They had justice, and it would have slowed down PKers to the point that players would have been happy. But it had some flaws in the form of "workarounds" that PKers were using.
-Blue healers, they could heal a red with no repercussions.
-Thieves did not get a count as long as they could get the victim to attack them for it. PKers used this as a trick to get out of taking a murder count.
-Ghosting off counts.

(Something else in the back of my mind is telling me that there was one or two other tactics too, but I don't recall.)

They were that close to making it work. I saw players gathering to go take on the PKers, at first, with that last effort. They were ready to take back UO, as "the good guys". But when they lost because of Blue Healers they gave up. many of these same players, who I knew in game, soon quit UO. The thief thing was just frosting on the cake, causing more to just give up on UO, but that was more of a solo thing so less evident.

Edit to add: The beauty of it was that if someone was being a jerk at a player event, spamming, moving things, etc., "the good guys" could take them out. You had a few counts to spare per week to do so (if you were surrounded by friends). Those few who were intent on being jerks and coming back again and again, the GMs took care of them.

 

[copycon]

There were several failures in it.

Bounty boards failed because a PK with a bounty on his head would simply have a friend kill him and collect the reward, furnished by either the PK victim or the game.

and go into stat loss...

The overall system failed because it didn't go far enough.
Basically, for a justice system to work, you need two components:
1) The punishment has to slow down PKing to a great degree, enough so that players aren't getting PKed as a normal part of their game play. There's a balance here, that point varies for different people. The overall benefit to the social aspects has to be clear.
2) The justice needs to satisfy the victims that there is, indeed, justice.

The last system UO had in place, just before Trammel, almost had it. Almost. They had justice, and it would have slowed down PKers to the point that players would have been happy. But it had some flaws in the form of "workarounds" that PKers were using.
-Blue healers, they could heal a red with no repercussions.
-Thieves did not get a count as long as they could get the victim to attack them for it. PKers used this as a trick to get out of taking a murder count.
-Ghosting off counts.

(Something else in the back of my mind is telling me that there was one or two other tactics too, but I don't recall.)

They were that close to making it work. I saw players gathering to go take on the PKers, at first, with that last effort. They were ready to take back UO, as "the good guys". But when they lost because of Blue Healers they gave up. many of these same players, who I knew in game, soon quit UO. The thief thing was just frosting on the cake, causing more to just give up on UO, but that was more of a solo thing so less evident.

Blue healers never resurrected red players as I recall. The NPC healer responded with something like "foul scum" and so on. Red players could be resurrected by the Resurrection spell, bandages or the Chaos shrine.

[EDIT]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. Blue players could heal red players but would flag grey if they did and would obviously be attackable by any player at that point. They could also be guard whacked for doing so. My previous statement still rings true however.

[/EDIT]

The justice system was adequate, you are just not fully understanding it.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. Blue players could heal red players but would flag grey if they did and would obviously be attackable by any player at that point. They could also be guard whacked for doing so.

That's just it. Blue healers did not go gray. They stayed blue when healing a red or a gray.

But I'm done. I'm not going to argue this stuff. You guys screwed the pooch. It's over. No game developer is going to code a game that punishes players, even PKers. Not unless those players ask for it, and you guys refuse to even see the need to ask for it. So we all have to live with it.

 

[Babble]

*cut out long answer about justice system someone blogged as it derails a bit too much*

In short open pvp needs consequences.

And the Uo world should be what people asked for quite some time again, more dangerous from mobs and more dynamic.

 

[copycon]

That's just it. Blue healers did not go gray. They stayed blue when healing a red or a gray.

Dead wrong. The criminal flagging system was exactly as I described earlier and it continues to be that way. I can assure you of that. If you doubt me, please do a little bit of research.

Criminal Flag:
How you get one

•Looting an innocent body.
•Attacking an innocent.
•Attempting to steal from an innocent (see below for information on stealing).
•Casting an area effect or field spell that damages an innocent.
•Ordering a pet or hireling to attack an innocent.
•Healing or casting beneficial spells on someone with a criminal or murderer flag.
These activities are only possible on the Felucca facet. Trammel ruleset does not allow criminal acts to be performed.


What are the symptoms?
•You appear grey to everyone.
•Anyone can freely attack or steal from you with impunity.
•Anyone who helps you by using the healing skill or casting beneficial spells (e.g. as In Vas Mani) on you will also be flagged a criminal.
•The timer for a criminal flag lasts for 2 minutes. The timer resets every time you perform a criminal act.
•The criminal flag lasts for 2 minutes on your corpse.
•If you receive a criminal flag in town, the guards may be called on you within a period of 10 seconds.
•Upon receiving a criminal flag, NPCs that notice the crime will yell for help.
•You may not access your bank, cast recall, sacred journey, gate travel or use the public moongates


Link: Flag Manual

Each of those points have been true for as far back as I can remember. I did not make them up and the author did not read my mind.

I can see that you have somehow manipulated the "justice" system into something that has allowed you to structure your statements around, but I can assure you that it is based on false information.

But I'm done. I'm not going to argue this stuff. You guys screwed the pooch. It's over. No game developer is going to code a game that punishes players, even PKers. Not unless those players ask for it, and you guys refuse to even see the need to ask for it. So we all have to live with it.

If that's how you feel then we'll agree to disagree on this.

If you can give me any legitimage points that UO today is in any way "better" than UO was before Trammel then I'll be glad to debate that with you. It certainly doesn't look that way to me though, and monster AI "tweaks" certainly aren't going to do much to change that.

 

[Babble]

'Classic UO had the wrong punishments and not enough 'justice' for the victim.

Someone suggested that reds if killed have to pay for resurrection and that parts of the bounty would go to the victims

Sounds a lot more interesting

 

[copycon]

'Classic UO had the wrong punishments and not enough 'justice' for the victim.

Someone suggested that reds if killed have to pay for resurrection and that parts of the bounty would go to the victims

Sounds a lot more interesting

The system you suggested defeats the purpose of having a bounty. The idea of the bounty is that the murderer has a ransom on his head and he or she then becomes renowned by other players. The person who has a bounty on their head then has to avoid every other player to prevent getting killed for the bounty gold which is collectable by the person that kills the murderer character, or whoever manages to get the murderer's head.

If the person who is playing the murderer character dies, they will go into stat loss which means the cost to redevelop those skills will most likely exceed the money earned through turning in his or her own head, let alone the effort involved. It also presumes that the red character does not die again while redeveloping those skills.

Justice indeed...

 

[Babble]

Never said anything about a bounty, you could replace that with a 'score board'. And the original plan is actually a loooooot longer, but interesting.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I don't think this topic could ever be talked about enough. It's essential to development. One of the things I think they should do is create a test shard.
Not like we have now for testing current implementation but one for radical concepts and ideas.

One that player base or anyone in the world can spend time creating different types of code systems and even landmass, which would require a world that would be able to expand itself. So, intelligent landmass, different ideas could then be rejected or accepted and systems could even be implemented but talking about things is the closest we can get right now.

I think the Guard System would be the priority because we are talking about making a type of intelligent spawn and creating a system where choices are made and certain reactions are expected or even the NPC but I think you would need to begin fresh because it wouldn't make sense to have so much intelligence but then not to have a realistic world.

Each NPC should have a home. The guards should have a place in each town and this should be made use of to begin to breathe life into the world itself. It would be nice if they could talk or at least say interesting things. So, I guess that would be some of the basic coding.

One of the reasons I picked guards as a starting point, is so that the world could be built without Trammel or even any other facet, just one world. If the land was made playable by all play styles then the guards would be a success.

Some of the other issues, the underlying things, there is no aging, no basic survival needs, such as, water and food. For example: For it to be dynamic, I think you would need the type of tree, the type of bird, the kind of nest, what it eats, what eats it, and how it is affected as a species.

So, weather or climate would also be important, basic stuctures.

So, that when you have tables that are presented, they include these variables and they will not need to be recoded because it will already be part of the system.

So, it becomes alot more complicated than just having the intelligence, which should be easy because you could make something look intelligent even though it really is not.

I think realism is a very important structure because all of the information is there, we don't have to make it up, we can look it up and use it. The fantasy part of course and the story telling is a bit more wonderous.

But i'm not sure if mini games are the answer. For example: Alchemy could be implemented as it is in real life but then add a fantasy twist, changing some of the items and names for the use in the game. So, what you end up with is a player who takes alchemy, actually understands alchemy in the real world, which allows you to make it as complicated or as basic as you want to.

But, the point is, if you don't start with that idea of the beginning, so that the rest of the system could be implemented then you will just continually rewrite a system until you get it right.

 

[Babble]

For UO smaller simpler systems should work.
Some animals like panther/some bears should also attack players and smaller animals

And the illusion of more dynamic content would be appreciated.
the solen holes which could move and be closed are/were fun.

Design 20 smaller dungeon areas with 10 differently scripted spawns and have 5+ spawn randomly each day.

Sometimes a hole in the ground would lead to the entrance, other days maybe a treasure map found in a tavern - such things are easy to do and they have tools for it ....

 

[Zyon Rockler]

If UO lasts another 10 years, then everything mentioned in this post is more than possible.

What I was refering to, was to try to make a point that alot of content is added but it always seems incomplete, you'll always see about 30-50 more ideas right after a change or an expansion, most being relevant and we have to sit back and ask, "Why all those things weren't put in" or "Why are all these things unfinished?"

I would like to see someone start working on the game and giving it constant update, even if it has to be on a test shard or something and then implemented at the end of the month. I'd really like to see people working constantly to improve the game, aside from everything else.

Like, couldn't they have some guy start working on NPCs? Say he takes Dean the Mage from Del and gives him a home, then the owner of the house, on the sign, reads, Dean the Mage. Maybe a small town beside Delucia of small homes could be added. Ok, so there is one big deal change. Now maybe they could add night and day and they could have the store open and close and then they could connect the time so people could use a clock to know when Dean the Mage will be back in his shop.

So, now this one NPC is realistic. He has a home, he has a job, sometimes he's at home, sometimes he's at work. To me it's important to make those small changes now and kind of make it policy. If we're going to add an NPC he needs to have a house, or maybe he could live on the street, whatever.

So, now we go through all the different NPCs and try to give them a place to sleep, a place to work, or some kind of purpose that makes their life seem meaningful. To me, this all comes before the intelligence or the quests because what will happen is we will keep adding NPCs with more expansions and all the NPCs will do is stand there or walk around a perimeter. So, if we're going to accept that as dynamic, then why do anything at all?

Same thing with the animals and the plant life. We don't have to add another 10,000 animals. You just take the ones that we have now, like the tropical bird and give him a nest and a tropical tree in a tropical area. Most of that is already done but there are no tropical bird eggs. There are no tropical bird predators and nothing for the tropical bird to eat.

So, why add more birds? Why add anything more to the bird. Eggs could become a resource that one might get from clicking on a tree. So, someone just walks around clicking trees. Maybe they find a leaf, tree seed, just random tree stuff and occassionally you see a tropical bird nest and you get eggs placed in your pack. So, then more systems could be added, more easily but that's just my opinion.

 

[copycon]

If UO lasts another 10 years, then everything mentioned in this post is more than possible.

What I was refering to, was to try to make a point that alot of content is added but it always seems incomplete, you'll always see about 30-50 more ideas right after a change or an expansion, most being relevant and we have to sit back and ask, "Why all those things weren't put in" or "Why are all these things unfinished?"

I would like to see someone start working on the game and giving it constant update, even if it has to be on a test shard or something and then implemented at the end of the month. I'd really like to see people working constantly to improve the game, aside from everything else.

Like, couldn't they have some guy start working on NPCs? Say he takes Dean the Mage from Del and gives him a home, then the owner of the house, on the sign, reads, Dean the Mage. Maybe a small town beside Delucia of small homes could be added. Ok, so there is one big deal change. Now maybe they could add night and day and they could have the store open and close and then they could connect the time so people could use a clock to know when Dean the Mage will be back in his shop.

So, now this one NPC is realistic. He has a home, he has a job, sometimes he's at home, sometimes he's at work. To me it's important to make those small changes now and kind of make it policy. If we're going to add an NPC he needs to have a house, or maybe he could live on the street, whatever.

So, now we go through all the different NPCs and try to give them a place to sleep, a place to work, or some kind of purpose that makes their life seem meaningful. To me, this all comes before the intelligence or the quests because what will happen is we will keep adding NPCs with more expansions and all the NPCs will do is stand there or walk around a perimeter. So, if we're going to accept that as dynamic, then why do anything at all?

Same thing with the animals and the plant life. We don't have to add another 10,000 animals. You just take the ones that we have now, like the tropical bird and give him a nest and a tropical tree in a tropical area. Most of that is already done but there are no tropical bird eggs. There are no tropical bird predators and nothing for the tropical bird to eat.

So, why add more birds? Why add anything more to the bird. Eggs could become a resource that one might get from clicking on a tree. So, someone just walks around clicking trees. Maybe they find a leaf, tree seed, just random tree stuff and occassionally you see a tropical bird nest and you get eggs placed in your pack. So, then more systems could be added, more easily but that's just my opinion.

When I read this I think of how accurate what you are describing fits a player character. Players do everything that you are describing when they own and stock a player vendor / vendor house, and they serve a dual purpose while doing so. That purpose is to balance the economy.

Programmed NPCs can not possibly interact the same way a player does with the world or another player. They can be programmed to do certain activites, but doing everything that you describe programatically is not logical or feasible for the time invested by the developer / development team.

As an example, a player would see that "Dean the Mage" owns a house and so on, and that player would respond immediately with "Great! Where's my regs Dean?". Then, that player would carry on with whatever it is he or she was doing and "Dean the Mage" would be just as irrelevant as he is now. There are a select few of players (role players mostly) that may enjoy what you are describing, but not nearly enough to put forth the effort needed.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I'm not going to get too involved in this discussion, and I am certainly not going back and forth with anyone...but I did want to relate some information here that might help some understand a couple of things about old UO:

When I started UO, there was a great sense in the game of being in a world...not just a game. That sense came not from the AI, not from the NPCs, but from the players. Sure, it had issues like bugs and lag, but let's not digress into that for now.

You would walk into a town, and there would be lots of people standing around. Some would mean you harm, some would mean you no ill. It was impossible to tell because you were dealing with real people with real functioning minds. It was never the same experience twice.

But that became far more evident when you walked out of a town. You could take the road, but if you did, you ran the risk of being attacked...and being attacked by players pretty much meant you died back then unless you were travelling in a large group. It was that element of not knowing what was going to happen, how you would deal with a situation if one did arise, and what the outcome would be that made the game exciting.

When Trammel was intoduced, and everyone went there, travelling anywhere became rote, uneventful, almost boring. Certainly if not any of those things, it became "safe". But with that safety came predictibility. Sure, you might be walking along and you might get attacked by say, a dread spider. But in the end, if you didn't want to fight that dread spider, all you had to do was take a few turns, get it caught on some sticks and rocks and such, and then move on your merry way.

The point here is not to say one thing is really better or worse than the other, but to say that if you want realistic AI, there is none better than Actual intelligence instead of Artificial intelligence. This is exactly why the original designers of the game built it the way they did.

I think this quote from Trebr Drab is what really made me decide to post on this topic:

They were that close to making it work. I saw players gathering to go take on the PKers, at first, with that last effort. They were ready to take back UO, as "the good guys". But when they lost because of Blue Healers they gave up. many of these same players, who I knew in game, soon quit UO. The thief thing was just frosting on the cake, causing more to just give up on UO, but that was more of a solo thing so less evident.

He is right...they really were "that close" to making it work. It really didn't need the heavy handed approach that was was splitting the world, or a PvP-switch. What it really needed was just what Hawkeye and Trebr Drab have both said...a justice system that actually worked.

Copycon said:

The justice system was adequate, you are just not fully understanding it.

But it really wasn't. If it was, people would not have been leaving UO because of PKs. We can debate the introduction of EverQuest, and Economics, etc...but I know a good deal of people that left UO due to PKs and thieves. So again, let's not digress into that.

So here is the real problem:

UO needs more realism (per this conversation, others may completely disagree...but again, let's try not to digress). Developing AI to make it so will likely only lead to players figuring a way around the AI, as they always have done. There is no debating that human intelligence is better and more challenging than game AI...the issue is, how do you prevent human players from making the game so difficult for others that they do not want to play it? You have to introduce some kind of artificial system that makes it less desirable for players to kill one another, while not making it impossible. How do you do that?? I think Hawkeye is on the right track (if you haven't read what he has linked to early in this thread, you should...it is an excellent point of reference, even if not the exact right answer). The developers are not going to want to put any system in place which will prevent anyone from playing the game (like suspensions, jail, perma-death, etc) and players that are victims in this scenario are not going to be very happy when they are killed by other players (it's apparently an ego thing if they are perfectly willing to die to NPCs with enhanced AI, but not players).

I personally believe that the answer lies somewhat along the lines of what Hawkeye has suggested. A system in which players have criminal "records" that follow them throughout their "lives". But the thing that really has to be put into place is a system that can change. A system that can be adapted to the demands of players. If PKing is out of control, the penalties need to be made tougher, if no one is engaging in PvP, perhaps they need to be loosened.

The biggest problem with the current game (and it is actually even worse in many of the more popular, newer, MMO games) is that it becomes stale. It relies too heavily on the introduction of new content, which looses its luster over a period of time because of rate of acquisition of new items, and more importantly, the ability of players to 'figure out' the AI. Will EA/Mythic ever address this?? Probably not. This, more than anything else, is why I left UO, but again, I will not digress into that.

If there ever is a sequel to UO (and I doubt it), I really, really, hope that EA/Mythic/whomever will take the time to carefully consider what players like Hawkeye have to say...because the world he describes in his blog is much more of a world, and much less of a game...and that is what UO was supposed to be all about.

 

[Zosimus]

My first expereince in UO was in 1998 played to 2000 on my first account. Coworkers that was playing the game talked me into trying it. I so remember my first day in the game to this day. I was so amazed what you could do. Everything seemed tied togeher in the game.

I would be out killing animals just for leather. I go to shame and kill earth elems for al the loot. I bring a packy to gather the ore off of them. I had to share a house with a guild member. Housing was pretty well full at the time. When I did buy my first house in UO it was a small tower. I was so proud of it. I also was aware I had to lock the door so my stuff wouldnt be taken. I sell death robes dyed in a black dye tub on my vendors and they be gone the next day. My neighbor beside me would put an order in for ingots when I was training my miner. The dexxers would xheal each other when we be fighting in the dungeons. Banks and cities were full. PK players just wouldnt rush in to fight someone. It was more tactical fighting sizing each other up. GM skill meant something. These are just some of my fond memories of days gone by.

Could they make UO what it could of been back in the day when they passed up on that chance? They could but I believe in my heart the game I had so much passion for can never be again. Let UO live and grow or continue it with eye candy that is a stalling tactic to divert the population away from the issues/bugs in the game. Truly a UO2 would be our best hope of what UO should and could still be. If the DEVS would LISTEN to the community and ACTUALLY follow through with what we wanted ( not what they think best) it could be possible.

 

[copycon]

But it really wasn't. If it was, people would not have been leaving UO because of PKs. We can debate the introduction of EverQuest, and Economics, etc...but I know a good deal of people that left UO due to PKs and thieves. So again, let's not digress into that.

Thanks for responding Morgana. I appreciate the subjective arguments.

I thought I should clarify. When I said that I was referring to the "almost right" justice system that existed at the time. I think that it was more "right" than most, and that it did work.

The justice system at the time meant that a player would enter stat loss if and when he or she died. Obviously that meant that upon resurrection, the affected character would be burdened significantly with having to redevelop their skills in order to become competitive again and also not die again during the process of redeveloping those skills which was a challenge in itself. To me, that seems very close to the "jail" or "permanent death" as you describe. It is not a far stretch between stat loss and starting a new character aside from retaining some half-developed skills and retaining character reputation and kill count. Maybe you and/or others feel differently, but I feel that the difference between half-developed skills and the progression of skill development to that point is negligible for most.

I also don't think the fact that players were leaving because they were being PK'd is a direct relationship or an accurate barometer to the problem. I think that many of those players were not the type of players who would enjoy the realism that UO provided and they would have left regardless as is now evident.

But I realize that you have no intention of going "back and forth" with this, so I'll leave it at that. If you read this response, good, if not, then all the best.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

I think something like that is worth development time because you could set it up on a system that's done one time. If you did one NPC a day, it would be finished within the next 10 years.

I can't believe it would be to expensive, first of all, to create day and night. It's already in the game. It just doesn't work the way it should.

For me, i'm on Atlantic, east coast. Why can't it get dark when it gets dark outside my house and then the sun come up when the sun comes up? Why can't we be made to believe that the game time is the same as real life?

What is wrong with the concept of having NPCs that go to bed and don't work at night and what would just this simple change do? It could cause people to interact more. It could cause people to have to go to different vendors. Maybe Umbra vendors would be the only ones open at night.

See, this opens up a whole new world of content. Now we can have vampires but don't take your vampire out in the daytime. Maybe you don't play nights and it would be unfair but there's plenty of places to hunt inside.

Also, different things could happen at night time that wouldn't normally happen in the daytime. Like, maybe a different type of spawn happens at night, maybe the guards sometimes don't work. So, by making this simple day-night change, you've opened up thousands of possibilities. So, the development time that it takes, is worth it because of the money that could be made on content.

So, say they re-work the NPCs and they give Dean the Mage a house and now he recalls and he goes home, people in town notice Dean just left and went to his house. Who knows what possibilities this could offer. If he doesn't have a house, we'll never know.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Obviously that meant that upon resurrection, the affected character would be burdened significantly with having to redevelop their skills in order to become competitive again and also not die again during the process of redeveloping those skills which was a challenge in itself.

Or at least it might have meant all of that, if they couldn't just leave their ghost parked in a house somewhere while they slept, went to work, played on another account, etc.

The problem with the old justice system was that it was too easy to avoid the actual consequences.

But I realize that you have no intention of going "back and forth" with this, so I'll leave it at that. If you read this response, good, if not, then all the best.

What I meant by that is that I don't care to get into any exchange of childish insults or what I like to call "nuh-uh/yay-huh".

I will always discuss things with someone, as long as they are being rational. Since I no longer have any vested interest in the game, my passion level for it at the lowest it has ever been...therefore, I won't be engaging in any heated debate. However, I do have good memories of it, and I don't mind offering my opinions on subjects like these, as long as the discussion remains civil.

 

[Trebr Drab]

But it really wasn't. If it was, people would not have been leaving UO because of PKs. We can debate the introduction of EverQuest, and Economics, etc...but I know a good deal of people that left UO due to PKs and thieves. So again, let's not digress into that.

Thanks for responding Morgana. I appreciate the subjective arguments.

I thought I should clarify. When I said that I was referring to the "almost right" justice system that existed at the time. I think that it was more "right" than most, and that it did work.

The justice system at the time meant that a player would enter stat loss if and when he or she died. Obviously that meant that upon resurrection, the affected character would be burdened significantly with having to redevelop their skills in order to become competitive again and also not die again during the process of redeveloping those skills which was a challenge in itself. To me, that seems very close to the "jail" or "permanent death" as you describe. It is not a far stretch between stat loss and starting a new character aside from retaining some half-developed skills and retaining character reputation and kill count. Maybe you and/or others feel differently, but I feel that the difference between half-developed skills and the progression of skill development to that point is negligible for most.

I also don't think the fact that players were leaving because they were being PK'd is a direct relationship or an accurate barometer to the problem. I think that many of those players were not the type of players who would enjoy the realism that UO provided and they would have left regardless as is now evident.

But I realize that you have no intention of going "back and forth" with this, so I'll leave it at that. If you read this response, good, if not, then all the best.

Copycon, just out of curiosity, did you play UO back then, before Trammel?

 

[Trebr Drab]

I think something like that is worth development time because you could set it up on a system that's done one time. If you did one NPC a day, it would be finished within the next 10 years.

I can't believe it would be to expensive, first of all, to create day and night. It's already in the game. It just doesn't work the way it should.

For me, i'm on Atlantic, east coast. Why can't it get dark when it gets dark outside my house and then the sun come up when the sun comes up? Why can't we be made to believe that the game time is the same as real life?

What is wrong with the concept of having NPCs that go to bed and don't work at night and what would just this simple change do? It could cause people to interact more. It could cause people to have to go to different vendors. Maybe Umbra vendors would be the only ones open at night.

See, this opens up a whole new world of content. Now we can have vampires but don't take your vampire out in the daytime. Maybe you don't play nights and it would be unfair but there's plenty of places to hunt inside.

Also, different things could happen at night time that wouldn't normally happen in the daytime. Like, maybe a different type of spawn happens at night, maybe the guards sometimes don't work. So, by making this simple day-night change, you've opened up thousands of possibilities. So, the development time that it takes, is worth it because of the money that could be made on content.

So, say they re-work the NPCs and they give Dean the Mage a house and now he recalls and he goes home, people in town notice Dean just left and went to his house. Who knows what possibilities this could offer. If he doesn't have a house, we'll never know.

Zyon, what you are taling about, they did in Ultima VII. That game was the first to have that, as well as "items on the ground" and also NPCs who responed to keywords. They also had NPC AI in the form of the Companions who acted sort of like Pets do in UO.

Ultima VII was very, very highly regarded by all.

Unfortunately, this being a MMO and with "newbies", etc., there's a problem with shops being closed for spans of time. While many may like it, many others would get frustrated with it. But you could have shifts of workers. And if individual workers were used with "keywords" for information, that would add game play to it.

But I want you to know that ever since UO was first made public, gamers have asked for U7 shop keepers that you could watch walk to work and go home. You are not alone.

 

[copycon]

Copycon, just out of curiosity, did you play UO back then, before Trammel?

Yes I did.

 

[copycon]

Or at least it might have meant all of that, if they couldn't just leave their ghost parked in a house somewhere while they slept, went to work, played on another account, etc.

The problem with the old justice system was that it was too easy to avoid the actual consequences.

I believe that is an equivalent to "jail time", no?

I'll elaborate for anyone who may not know...

Murderer characters had a choice. Their choices were:

1. Invest the time needed to "burn off" their kill count(s) in order to avoid stat loss which may or may not have been possible depending upon their number of kills.
2. Be punished with stat loss and spend the time, gold and effort needed to redevelop their character skills. Also, avoid being killed again while doing so.

Either way, both were forms of justice and I personally think that both were adequate.

I will always discuss things with someone, as long as they are being rational. Since I no longer have any vested interest in the game, my passion level for it at the lowest it has ever been...therefore, I won't be engaging in any heated debate. However, I do have good memories of it, and I don't mind offering my opinions on subjects like these, as long as the discussion remains civil.

Then we share the same opinion about the subject...

I still retain a level of interest for UO, but with a very limited scope. That scope is specific to the "Classic Shard" discussion, and when/if an official announcement is made, or 12/31/2010 comes, I will be here, or not, depending on the outcome.

For anyone that may not like me or what I have to say... here you go:



LOL

 

[Trebr Drab]

Heh, copycon, it's not about liking you. I think it must be different for different people, but for myself, I don't trust your motives. Your memory is selective. You didn't recall the HUGE problem that blue healers were. You don't seem to remember that reds were burning off murder counts as ghosts, using macros or at banks where everyone saw them to redcue their time "in jail", because the penalty was applied when they resurrected instead of when they died. You say it worked, when clearly it didn't and Trammel was the result.

And now you're here to promote it as if it was enough.

So, we've all seen this before. It's fine, claim all you want. Open PvP with a real justice system is an almost impossible ideal to move on these days without guys like you trying to get that old PK glory back and pushing it back into the dark recesses of MMO history even farther again. And this is exactly what I said earlier in this thread. PKers, like you, will simply not accept that it didn't work and that it won't work without a real, working, justice system. And in the process of trying to get back your old glory days which no other player wants, nor will ever accept again (because they know better now), you are just keeping the concept of social sphere's with player control pushed out of gaming. You are keeping the extreme carebear philosophy going by holding back the social possibilities by your efforts. You are causing the rest of the player base to hit the breaks as soon as you pop up with your ideas. "You" being not you alone, players like you.

Sell fish much?

 

[copycon]

Heh, copycon, it's not about liking you. I think it must be different for different people, but for myself, I don't trust your motives. Your memory is selective. You didn't recall the HUGE problem that blue healers were. You don't seem to remember that reds were burning off murder counts as ghosts, using macros or at banks where everyone saw them to redcue their time "in jail", because the penalty was applied when they resurrected instead of when they died. You say it worked, when clearly it didn't and Trammel was the result.

And now you're here to promote it as if it was enough.

I don't think that my memory is very selective. I actually have memory that serves all 3 perspectives, the anti-pk (blue), the criminal (grey), and the murderer (red). I may not have the same level of remorse for the rules that were in place as you do, but I still do believe that they were adequate, or much closer than you think.

I can see the reason why the penalties were applied upon resurrection instead of upon death. My first thought is, at the time, there were "exploits" in place that allowed players to give each other murder counts after the fact. Penalties upon death would mean that the door would be wide open for "griefing" to an astounding level. By applying the penalties upon resurrection, the players were given a choice. Their choice was to deal with stat loss, or "burn off" the murder count. There may be other reasons, but that is the one that comes to mind.

I also don't quite understand the concern for the area that the player uses to burn off their murder count in ghost form. Either way, the player is unable to do anything besides see the world in black and white (pun intended). So, I don't understand the cause for concern for justice. Maybe you can elaborate?

So, we've all seen this before. It's fine, claim all you want. Open PvP with a real justice system is an almost impossible ideal to move on these days without guys like you trying to get that old PK glory back nd pushing it back into the dark recesses of MMO history even farther again. And this is exactly what I said earlier in this thread. PKers, like you, will simply not accept that it didn't work and that it won't work without a real, working, justice system. And in the process of trying to get back your old glory days which no other player wants, nor will ever accept again (because they know better now), you are just keeping the concept of social sphere's with player control pushed out of gaming. You are keeping the extreme carebear philosophy going by holding back the social possibilities by your efforts. You are causing the rest of the player base to hit the breaks as soon as you pop up with your ideas. "You" being not you alone, players like you.

Sell fish much?

Clearly your perspective is limited to the negative aspects. I don't think I need to say much else about that.

 

[canary]

Heh, copycon, it's not about liking you. I think it must be different for different people, but for myself, I don't trust your motives. Your memory is selective. You didn't recall the HUGE problem that blue healers were. You don't seem to remember that reds were burning off murder counts as ghosts, using macros or at banks where everyone saw them to redcue their time "in jail", because the penalty was applied when they resurrected instead of when they died. You say it worked, when clearly it didn't and Trammel was the result.

And now you're here to promote it as if it was enough.

So, we've all seen this before. It's fine, claim all you want. Open PvP with a real justice system is an almost impossible ideal to move on these days without guys like you trying to get that old PK glory back and pushing it back into the dark recesses of MMO history even farther again. And this is exactly what I said earlier in this thread. PKers, like you, will simply not accept that it didn't work and that it won't work without a real, working, justice system. And in the process of trying to get back your old glory days which no other player wants, nor will ever accept again (because they know better now), you are just keeping the concept of social sphere's with player control pushed out of gaming. You are keeping the extreme carebear philosophy going by holding back the social possibilities by your efforts. You are causing the rest of the player base to hit the breaks as soon as you pop up with your ideas. "You" being not you alone, players like you.

Sell fish much?

The main problem with posters like copycon is that, yes, they revel in red playing and as such are pretty much blind that what they do has a negative impact on the players and the game. And with actions come consequences.

I mean, in the real world I'm assuming that a bank robber would wish to not be heavily penalized for their actions. 3 years in jail or three months probation? Hmm... not a tough call.

Personally, it gets very tiring when I hear some red players keep barking 'risk versus reward!' but then are appalled when the 'risk' part applies to them in any strict way of maintaining a viable justice system.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I also don't quite understand the concern for the area that the player uses to burn off their murder count in ghost form. Either way, the player is unable to do anything besides see the world in black and white (pun intended). So, I don't understand the cause for concern for justice. Maybe you can elaborate?

While this wasn't addressed at me, I will wager a guess that his problem with it is the same as mine...

...you could "burn off" the counts at times you were not actually playing the game. Perhaps if code had been put into place that would automatically log ghosts out after x amount of time, regardless of what is going on around them, then it might have worked. Then again, that assumes that players couldn't just set up a macro program to answer in the affirmative when prompted as to whether they wished to stay logged in.

That's the problem most people had with stat loss on resurrection...almost no one actually suffered the stat loss, they just left their ghost logged in while they slept or went to work.

I will also add this...there are a lot of posters here that make the assumption that because someone champions the cause of open PvP that that person must be a PK. I can tell you this much, I know more anti-PKs that never had a red...myself included...that quit this game because of Trammel than I know reds that left.

 

[Babble]

As we talk about AI and drifted somewhat off to classic pvp.
What ideas would there be for more justice?

Guard Mages opening gates to where murderers are?
A news crier system reporting movements of murderers?
When the murderer dies a partly recompensation from his funds?

 

[Zyon Rockler]

The OP mentioned NPC miners, so I thought it was on topic to talk about NPCs. I think anyone who is going to make a realistic world is going to think about certain details and the single player MMO arguement is just completely wrong.

The MMO should first be a single player game so that the player can be an individual. It should then be multiplayer. My point is what the game has right now to offer in the way of feeling like you're in a real world and then trying to imagine how a single player would interact with others.

It's not worth argueing something like realism because then it just seems to become political. Just because the store is closed doesn't mean you couldn't find Dean the Mage's house and get him out of bed, although he might be upset, the game would still function as it does now. Of course people are going to be frustrated but that's what you want for people to feel and have compassion for the game.

I think alot of this problem has nothing to do with what we want put in the game or how the game should work. I think there is something else stopping the progress.

I don't know what the Devs are working with but I would assume creating an NPC would be as simple as creating a character. The Devs open up their program, we'll call it, The Make UO Better Program, and there's alittle icon that says create NPC.

So, now they pick if it's male or female, then they pick its' skills, hair color, styles, clothing, armour, items.

Then they pick the type of NPC it is. Is it a merchant, a guard. Then they pick if it has certain scripts, like is it a miner who walks along the mountain mining, or a lumberjack, if so, then they pick the area and perimeter.

They pick what keywords or interactions it will have. For example: If it's Delucia they might talk about Delucia.

Then there might be a master script that is also connected so that there are certain conversations of worldly events.

So, let's say they pick a town drunk, they make him homeless, he gets torn clothes, his name is Tipsy, the dev creates the NPC, has him drink some booze and then saves him as a drunk or maybe just clicks on a menu for characteristics, depending on how easy it is for them to add an NPC.

So, anyhow, I would have to look at a spread sheet to see what all the different things would be, but you could see with a system like this, it only takes about 20 clicks to make an NPC or modify one.

So, why don't we see lots of different types of NPCs that we can interact with? Is it because the system they use is way to complicated or is it because it's someone's opinion is that it wouldn't be a good idea to have NPCs seem more realistic?

So, if they have a system that is similar to this, where they simply can plug in a new NPC then it would be this system that would need more work to create better NPCs, such as, guards and spawns.

I mean even the clothing NPCs wear or when they have events, I've always wondered what are they using to make that NPC/Character because you never truely see anything awesome.

 

[copycon]

The main problem with posters like copycon is that, yes, they revel in red playing and as such are pretty much blind that what they do has a negative impact on the players and the game. And with actions come consequences.

I mean, in the real world I'm assuming that a bank robber would wish to not be heavily penalized for their actions. 3 years in jail or three months probation? Hmm... not a tough call.

Personally, it gets very tiring when I hear some red players keep barking 'risk versus reward!' but then are appalled when the 'risk' part applies to them in any strict way of maintaining a viable justice system.

I don't appreciate being negatively profiled like that, but if that's what you need to reassure yourself in your own mind then be my guest.

The truth is that I am making legitimate points for the purposes of debate, and you are making vague analogies of a stereotypical sociopath. I suggest that you actually read what I wrote and give it consideration before automatically discounting what I said and responding with a canned response.

Unlike some others, I am more than willing to acknowledge the "risk vs reward" system and I am willing to neutrally accept the positive and negative aspects. The point that I've been trying to make is that the penalties were implemented and did have an effect on the experience of playing a murderer character. The fact that players continued to play as murderer characters does not mean that the justice system did not work, it simply meant that those players adapted to minimize the possibilities of facing those penalties. This is exactly the same result that happens with any problem situation. Players adapt as needed.

If you would rather have a "real world" adaptation, consider that murderers and criminals don't face punishment until they get caught, and based on your points, the justice system in real life is no more effective than the justice system was in UO.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

The MMO should first be a single player game so that the player can be an individual. It should then be multiplayer.

I don't mean this to sound mean, or rude...but this is exactly the problem with Ultima Online as it is today.

MMO stands for Massively MULTIPLAYER Online. The sad part is, MMO has really turned into MSO over the past 10 years or so. Sure, your friends are online too, but their involvement is not required for you to experience everything the game has to offer...thus, it is no longer really a multiplayer game.

Anyone that has played any of the other MMOs out there can probably tell you, most of them...especially the big ones...follow the same model.

I was actually having a discussion on the phone with an ex-UO player the other night. He plays WoW currently. We were discussing what made old UO different from WoW and what made each better than the other. The things we mostly agreed on were this:

- In the old days of UO, interaction between players was a necessity. In WoW, interaction between players is almost a necessity...but for vastly different reason. In old UO, interaction was not something the player could control, therefore the player had to either interact with other players that could help him or her, or they fell victim to other players. In WoW, players are somewhat forced to interact to help one another because of the way character classes are set up. If a player in WoW wants to see some of the higher end instances and bosses, they have to find others that bring different, yet necessary, skills to the party. One is a function of social mechanisms, the other is a function of game mechanisms.

- In old UO, the motivation for a player to remain in the game after your skills reached their limit was derived from a desire to have a social impact on the game and the people that played it. In WoW, the motivation is to level up and to collect drops. Certainly, both games have interaction, but the reason most old school UO players continued to play it after their characters were "complete" was because they wanted to either fight against "evil" PKs, or because they were PKs...or, they wanted to be a part of the world that supported that particular conflict, either through crafting or vending. In WoW, there really is no social interaction on that level, so the motivation to remain in the world stems solely from the desire to increase one's goods or one's level.

Of course, his opinion differed from mine in regards to which was better. Obviously, I am more of a fan of old UO, and he a fan of WoW...which is much closer to current UO.

Anyway, I do tend to ramble a bit

The point is, UO was designed as a multiplayer game...it was designed so that players, not NPCs, were supposed to be the primary source of interaction. I always wanted to see player vendors, that were played LIVE...not NPC player vendors...eventually replace town vendors. I always wanted to see dungeons in which players would assume the role of monsters, the way GMs used to do back in the old days.

Sigh...oh well...

 

[copycon]

...you could "burn off" the counts at times you were not actually playing the game. Perhaps if code had been put into place that would automatically log ghosts out after x amount of time, regardless of what is going on around them, then it might have worked. Then again, that assumes that players couldn't just set up a macro program to answer in the affirmative when prompted as to whether they wished to stay logged in.

That's the problem most people had with stat loss on resurrection...almost no one actually suffered the stat loss, they just left their ghost logged in while they slept or went to work.

Remember that short and long term murder counts took 8 hours and 40 hours respectively to burn off, so I don't think it was quite as easy as some people think. It would quite literally take days or weeks to burn off murder counts, so a player macroing for that reason did not have an "easy road" ahead of them by any means.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar, I'll include a link to more detailed information: The Murder System

Also, murderers faced stat loss when they died. That is the "problem" with the justice system that many are describing. Murderers must die in order to face the greatest consequence of their actions, so they did whatever they could to avoid dying. Once the murderer character inevitably died, in my experience, those murderer characters disappeared and were never seen again, or at least not soon after.

I will also add this...there are a lot of posters here that make the assumption that because someone champions the cause of open PvP that that person must be a PK. I can tell you this much, I know more anti-PKs that never had a red...myself included...that quit this game because of Trammel than I know reds that left.

I did not play a murderer character consistently, but I did understand the mechanics of playing as a murderer character. I found more entertainment in hunting the PKs than I did playing as one myself, so that is why I feel the way I do about it.

 

[Babble]

You only burn down the short time count of 8 hours.

UO was/is full of bugs considering training a character.
Many people pked/died then made a new char if they were too deep in stat.