Peerless Resources need rethinking ?

[Zyon Rockler]

This post seems very critical and opinionated. Just because the idea is not right on doesn't mean it's not heading in the right direction. It takes everyone's ideas to make something possible. Our ideas inspire other ideas, similar to creation itself.

We've had the idea for years in UO to bring people together. I remember 1 to be building a house. You would need crafters and materials. This sparked other ideas to bring community you would need to have the skill to create such items.

For example: The way things are now, you have the skill set on 1 character that allow you to make something. Sometimes you need 2 skills. What this idea suggested was, you would need a tailor, a smith, a stone worker to make such items. The difference is the skills are on different characters.

So, rather than needing X skill or X Y Skill you need character type, similar to a focus circle. So, now you may need 3 or 4 people rather than 3 or 4 skills, now you have community.

There are alot of things that I think could be done just by forcing team work and I do mean force, similar to our government. We try to stand on principles but they become bashed in by idealism and people hide behind freedom and free will but there will come a time when we need to understand the difference between right and wrong.

I also feel as if something has gone wrong with crafting. I'd like to take my hunter out and find resources all over. They did a good job with the new expansion but there should be more than 1 way. To me 1 way is a narrow street, back doors are exciting, secret passages are interesting, so if your looking for 1 item or ingredient there should be a way for everyone to get it.

 

[popps]

game changed time to move onward

Maybe I am not getting my point through here, don't know....

May I ask you a question ?

Is it better a game where all players can be self-sufficient, that is, be capable of providing for all their needs WITHOUT having to count, rely, resort to other players, or is it "perhaps" better a game where players have to eventually count on fellow players for their in game needs ?

If the latter is the better way then, having players on the same one account be able to have both fighters and crafters all trained up to the max is NOT a good thing.

Why not ?

Because clearly, it allows players to cover all their needs on their own, without having to rely on other players. That is, fighters to rely on crafters and crafters to rely on fighters.

THIS is the point I am trying to get across.

So, the answer that needs be answered is whether a game is better when players on that same account can do it all or whether players on that same one account are NOT allowed to cover anything (at least not to excellence levels...).

Personally, I am of the opinion that the game would be better if crafters and fighters had to rely on one another and not be able to cover all needs "in house", within the same one account.

 

[Connor_Graham]

I find it rather ironic that in the most successful MMO in history, WoW, the fighters ARE the crafters, and vice versa. Obviously popps logic isn't agreed to by anyone but himself.

 

[Shelleybean]

Popps, your idea is pretty extreme but most importantly, your solution doesn't actually do anything to help the situation. So if you force players to open a second account and they actually do so, they still have their own crafters and their own warriors, just on separate accounts. The most likely thing to happen is to frustrate the player base and risk closing accounts.
Some other arguments include:
1) We can have up to 7 character slots. If I wanted a crafter then basically I would have to fill all 7 of the slots with crafters?
2) Crafters and merchants are not the same thing. Someone may love crafting but is unable to run a shop to provide wares or plays during off peak times and is unable play when most players do.
3) Your idea is basically going to wipe players accounts of hard earned skills plus the time and money needed to raise such skills. For example, I would have to choose between having 120 imbuing and 120 magery on the same account. Imbuing was costly and tedious to raise and the 120 magery scroll was expensive. I can hear the accounts closing as we speak!
4) Under your system, crafters would not be able to get even basic supplies themselves, such as barbed leather. They would be forced to pay high prices for supplies.

 

[Surgeries]

Besides the fact that I do not recall reading "sandbox" on any of the boxes I bought, full game or expansions, at least not the old ones, not sure about the more recent ones, I do not see the issue, really.

Even if it said anywhere the word "sandbox", that does not mean, at least to me, that it should imply anything goes.......

If it did, then we would not have restrictions for Siege and Muegen, for example.

Point is, that if it is worth it, then sandbox or not sandbox then it should be an additions welcome to the game.

So, regardless of the word "sandbox", the real issue here is whether or not separating a crafter from a fighter would be an improvement for the game or not.

I think it would.

Why ? Because as the game is now (easiness to play both to excelling levels with same one account) most players have become self sufficient and just use their crafters to make stuff for their fighters and this, is not good for the overall game and comunity IMHO.

Instead, the way I would like it to be, would not make it any longer possible for players to use their own crafters to support their own fighters and would necessarily either have to get a second account to have both worlds or have to rely on other players for their needs.

That would again create more interaction among players playing fighters and players playing crafters and help rebuild comunities and all that.

Srsly? Srsly?

It has to say "Sandbox" on the Game Box for you to grasp, or research the concept?

OK...really slow for you Popps...but you have to do the rest of the work...

A "Sandbox" is a box with 4 boards or other contraptions to form a "Box" which is then filled with "Sand".

Then, you put a child in that sandbox. They can often times create their own "Fun" out of a couple of sticks and a piece of twine. "Anything Goes" within the confines of the 4 boards...anything the imagination of the child can conceive and believe.

Naturally, UO doesn't have sand, or a box. "Sandbox" game is a "Figure of Speech" to represent a video game in a "Virtual" world. The term "Sandbox Game" if researched on a Wikipedia, may enlighten you popps.

The opposite of a "Sandbox" Game would be your game...thoroughly structured with nothing left to chance. A rule set that keeps everyone the same...a ruleset that doesn't let anyone achieve TOO much. A perfectly linear path, from which straying is only allowed if it benefits popps.

Go to this link, and really study it, popps...before coming back here, and stuffing your foot in your mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay

It doesn't likely say "Sandbox Game" on Grand Theft Auto. Or on Elder Scrolls. It doesn't have to.

Once you grasp this concept...hopefully you can stop posting about trying to make this great sandbox game into a perfectly predictable, linear game play style that totally limits any upward mobility that doesn't jive with what you do or like to do. Or can do, I should say.

That would srsly rock. Srsly.

 

[mbraud4]

Are we really arguing about peerless ingredients now? This is just another one of those lets throw this to the wall and see if it sticks thread...And to come up with the most radical "solution" to somethign that many of us don't even find a "problem..."

I see your point, if EA "fixes" this the way you want, it will open up the door for you to create threads about the 5 other problems this "fix" causes. Sounds like someone is running out of things to complain about and is reaching out on this one. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Guido_LS]

Maybe I am not getting my point through here, don't know....

May I ask you a question ?

Is it better a game where all players can be self-sufficient, that is, be capable of providing for all their needs WITHOUT having to count, rely, resort to other players, or is it "perhaps" better a game where players have to eventually count on fellow players for their in game needs ?

If the latter is the better way then, having players on the same one account be able to have both fighters and crafters all trained up to the max is NOT a good thing.

Why not ?

Because clearly, it allows players to cover all their needs on their own, without having to rely on other players. That is, fighters to rely on crafters and crafters to rely on fighters.

THIS is the point I am trying to get across.

So, the answer that needs be answered is whether a game is better when players on that same account can do it all or whether players on that same one account are NOT allowed to cover anything (at least not to excellence levels...).

Personally, I am of the opinion that the game would be better if crafters and fighters had to rely on one another and not be able to cover all needs "in house", within the same one account.

Your point is getting through, Popps - what's NOT getting through, to you, is that your point removes what has ALWAYS, since DAY 1, been THE primary draw to UO - FREEDOM OF CHOICE. You could choose to follow the Virtues, or to ignore them. You could choose to play any skill you wished, and, in any combination that you wished. You could choose to interact with the rest of the player base, or you could choose to play the hermit.

What you are proposing not only takes away that freedom of choice, but also imposes a financial hardship on some who may only be able to afford one account, but still want to be able to taste all the game has to offer. What gives you the right to decide how someone interacts with their wallet? Because that is what you are doing.

There are probably some people that share beliefs similar to yours - the RP communities, in a limited form, maybe. Why don't you join them? Require a shard transfer? It's only money - something you don't mind spending for everyone else.

But once again, would you please stop trying to nerf everyone else just to make yourself happy? Because this is something seriously more deep seeded than just your lack of sense of community. Having difficulty finding people to play with you? It's obvious the PvP world isn't for you, because you have cried nerf in at least 10 different PvP threads since I have come back alone. Have trouble with PvM vs anything larger than a greater mongbat? Can't help you there. There's plenty of nifty guides here on Stratics on how to be a better anything. Trouble being a crafter? Same thing applies.

Because all this reeks of to me is the 5 year old that couldn't find a buddy at recess.