POLL: Are you happy with where the current Development team is taking UO?

[Minerva Foxglove]

Very well said Nexus. Every word.:bowdown:

 

[Violence]

The OP gave perfectly good choices considering the subject, maybe you're not in the right Poll?

UO is old? Never asked for the impossible, either scrap it and go UO2, make a SERIOUS attempt at new graphics or keep what we've got. No problem here with any of those. Why do you bring this up?

Other games had technological advantages? Is this even relevant to anything? Are you trying to incite some sort of pity? Most things asked from the players are within the game's capabilities either way. Look at what has been done so far with this technologically inferior platform.

What they did back then, was really cool for its time.. Understandable. It's gotten its awards and recognition. Irrelevant here.

Changed Devs too many times.. True. And that is.. Somehow a reason not to get the game running properly? Is it something the players should have to suffer for, for this long? What exactly are you trying to add to this conversation by bringing it up, besides pity or strengthening the opinion that with so many changes Ultima has lost its momentum and that the current team, like the previous couple of teams, are completely lost and go about in Total Whateverness.

They can't please all of us? Well, nice excuse but they don't really try. Or they simply please those who would stick to UO even when not pleased at all- Which is not much of an achievement over all this time.

UO's got older players. Uhm.. Okay?... So?

Tell me how ANY of this is relevant to the total inability on the Devs' part to "Fix UO"? To tune it, if you will. Not do the impossible, just improve it as far as it can be improved, and just do their job.. You know, fix things. Balance things.

I surely got off your lawn, you can keep it. It's got bugs and little kids, despite what you claim, that will cheat me out of all my fun. This reply of yours does not incite feelings of superiority or well-deserved pride for being part of UO until recently. And if anything, UO needs MORE PEOPLE on its lawn. I completely disagree with what you're saying. Sorry./

 

[Nexus]

The OP gave perfectly good choices considering the subject, maybe you're not in the right Poll?

I'm sure I'm in the right poll just pointing out his options didn't cover my opinion.

UO is old? Never asked for the impossible, either scrap it and go UO2, make a SERIOUS attempt at new graphics or keep what we've got. No problem here with any of those. Why do you bring this up?

Other games had technological advantages? Is this even relevant to anything? Are you trying to incite some sort of pity? Most things asked from the players are within the game's capabilities either way. Look at what has been done so far with this technologically inferior platform.

I bring up age because it is revelant. UO began development in 1995. 1995 was the introduction of the Pentium Class Processor the first processor to handle Out of Order Execution, this was a significant game changer in how not only hardware was designed but in what you could actually do with a programming language, speaking of which UO uses a scripting framework derived from Java a programming language that was introduced in 1995... is it getting clearer. UO was completely built on unfounded technology. The couple of years difference in time other development studios had provided them opportunities to better harness the technology that had came out. This isn't being said to gain pity for the devs, it's just a statement and opinion. I think they've done a fabulous job with what they have. I just don't think what they have isn't as good as what they would have gotten if they had started development in say 1997 vs 1995.

What they did back then, was really cool for its time.. Understandable. It's gotten its awards and recognition. Irrelevant here.

Changed Devs too many times.. True. And that is.. Somehow a reason not to get the game running properly? Is it something the players should have to suffer for, for this long? What exactly are you trying to add to this conversation by bringing it up, besides pity or strengthening the opinion that with so many changes Ultima has lost its momentum and that the current team, like the previous couple of teams, are completely lost and go about in Total Whateverness.

Of course the game lost momentum all games do, eventually WoW will lose people it's how things work.

They can't please all of us? Well, nice excuse but they don't really try. Or they simply please those who would stick to UO even when not pleased at all- Which is not much of an achievement over all this time.

If they didn't try you wouldn't see a publish every couple months....

UO's got older players. Uhm.. Okay?... So?

Tell me how ANY of this is relevant to the total inability on the Devs' part to "Fix UO"? To tune it, if you will. Not do the impossible, just improve it as far as it can be improved, and just do their job.. You know, fix things. Balance things.

I surely got off your lawn, you can keep it. It's got bugs and little kids, despite what you claim, that will cheat me out of all my fun. This reply of yours does not incite feelings of superiority or well-deserved pride for being part of UO until recently. And if anything, UO needs MORE PEOPLE on its lawn. I completely disagree with what you're saying. Sorry./

What I'm saying with this is simple. The problem isn't UO it's the perception and expectations of the players. It was easier a decade ago when we didn't have that many games to compare UO too. Now our perceptions have altered and most of us don't realize it. It's like when you see the same person day after day, you don't notice the little changes in them. But when you see someone you've not seen in 5 years the changes are obvious. We've all seen how MMO's have evolved over time, we see the technological changes and advancements everywhere. When we try to put UO into that perspective we realize that realize it doesn't always fit anymore. Which leads to one more statement on this...

UO is nothing more or less than what you make of it. Shape characters and game play to UO and you won't have a problem, not the other way around. Spend all your time griping and complaining here about changes instead of adapting and the game will further leave you behind.

 

[Woodsman]

UO was completely built on unfounded technology. The couple of years difference in time other development studios had provided them opportunities to better harness the technology that had came out. This isn't being said to gain pity for the devs, it's just a statement and opinion. I think they've done a fabulous job with what they have. I just don't think what they have isn't as good as what they would have gotten if they had started development in say 1997 vs 1995.

Jonathan Baron brought it up in another thread - this is a huge part of why UO succeeded is that Garriott knew that being first to the mainstream market was more important than anything else. Garriott could have waited just a few years and it would have been 3D, but it would have been launching with AC/EQ. In early 1996, Ultima IX in its 3D form was being worked on and previewed. 3D was not alien to Garriott and his team at all during the last year and a half of UO's development.

Of course the game lost momentum all games do, eventually WoW will lose people it's how things work.

Blizzard is already looking ahead to that - they are working on their next MMO already, with a plan for 2013-2014.

Of course, Blizzard could introduce player housing to WoW and that would go far to keeping more players around.

 

[Nexus]

Jonathan Baron brought it up in another thread - this is a huge part of why UO succeeded is that Garriott knew that being first to the mainstream market was more important than anything else. Garriott could have waited just a few years and it would have been 3D, but it would have been launching with AC/EQ. In early 1996, Ultima IX in its 3D form was being worked on and previewed. 3D was not alien to Garriott and his team at all during the last year and a half of UO's development.

I'm not saying that 3D was alien to them, I'm arguing that the technology available at the time UO was under development, not only in the Studio, but in the end users home limited what UO could have been. This server side framework still plays an effect on how UO is today. The Technology was simply too new it the later comers had the advantage of a couple of years more development and adaptation of programming languages targeted towards harnessing the power of this new technology. They spent 2 years from development to launch of UO, do you honestly think with a live product they had the time or capacity to completely revamp everything to take advantage of better equipment, and more flexible programming languages and techniques.

Blizzard is already looking ahead to that - they are working on their next MMO already, with a plan for 2013-2014.

Of course, Blizzard could introduce player housing to WoW and that would go far to keeping more players around.

EA was too, then canceled UO2 because at the time UO didn't have many competitors at least not one's that were in a position to redefine success. WoW and EQ II were still 3 years off, Star Wars Galaxies 2 years off, and DAoC was still a few months out from launch. .

 

[Woodsman]

I'm not saying that 3D was alien to them, I'm arguing that the technology available at the time UO was under development, not only in the Studio, but in the end users home limited what UO could have been. This server side framework still plays an effect on how UO is today. The Technology was simply too new it the later comers had the advantage of a couple of years more development and adaptation of programming languages targeted towards harnessing the power of this new technology. They spent 2 years from development to launch of UO, do you honestly think with a live product they had the time or capacity to completely revamp everything to take advantage of better equipment, and more flexible programming languages and techniques.

Sorry, and I agree with you - I just meant that Garriott made the right decision to ship with what they had and what they knew was feasible both from their end and from the consumer end. The tradition Origin had of pushing hardware was a tradition best left behind with UO in 1997. Many people didn't have a decent internet connection as it was, let alone the hardware to match up with Ultima IX.

Ultima IX could have launched a lot sooner, but there were a lot of problems both on the technical side (hardware versus software 3D) as well as some personnel issues. If UO had to go through the technical problems that IX had during development (and arguably still had at launch), I don't think UO would have lasted as long or had as much depth. People forget that Ultima IX wasn't that big when you were inside the game world or that there was a good reason why there weren't as many NPCs, etc.

I hate to imagine what a UO based on Ultima IX technology would have been like with 1990s hardware if you had walked up to WBB with a few dozen people.

EQ launched like 18 months? after UO did, and there was still debate about its original hardware requirements. That 18 months was huge though - while UO was able to rule the roost, the EQ team was able to work out a lot of issues that would have plagued a 3D UO (and arguably did plague Ultima IX). EQ was unfortunately able to double UO's numbers by the end of '99.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Guh... I do NOT want to think of how UO would have been had it been done the same way that U IX was. Just the camera/movement system in that game kept me from playing it long... I couldn't even get to the game-stopping bugs because the camera and movement systems were both put on the mouse in such a way taht you could NEVER have a steady camera.

Talk about a poll on motion sickness in the making!

 

[jaashua]

Let me put it this way. UO was an astonishing game and it's taken a lot of time and incompetence to bring it down to this level.

I play this game with the full knowledge that the dev team has pretty much everything completely backwards. Like so many before me, it's only a matter of time before they take the game beyond a threshold of my tolerance.

 

[Merion]

Just finish the friggin virtue system!

 

[Pandora_CoD]

- 3D Client Features Added to the 2D Client.

There needs to be one client, period. Having to divide very limited bug fixing between two clients is not helping UO at all.

- Housing System Overhaul.
Allow folks the ability to have ONE HOUSE per account PER SHARD. I do not see anything wrong with people having a house on Catskills and a house on Atlantic.

If I were a gold reseller/house seller/etc., I would kiss you many times for this. Being able to have a house on every shard in say Luna, on just one account would be a wonderful thing for the gold resellers and those types. It would save them a lot of money. If there were more players, it would also make it very easy for the house resellers to tie up a lot of large houses with fewer accounts.

As a player, and as somebody who hopes to start seeing more new players one of these days, I'd loathe it. It would tie up too many large houses that would rarely be used for anything other than storage or that would be placed while the resellers try and sell them off, and it definitely impact new players.

I know that there is a glut of tower and 18x18 spots on most shards, but that would disappear quickly, and we'd be facing the fact that for $13 a month, a gold reseller could tie up dozens of 18x18s and towers on just one account. It's very easy money for them - either they try to sell it for cash or they sell it for gold in-game. They are happy either way.

Even if you pretend the people who wouldn't abuse it just to make some gold or cash don't exist, we'd have a housing crisis. We'd have 40,000 accounts or 50,000 or however many there are, able to place over a million houses across the shards. That's insane. That's a way worse situation than the housing crunch before Tram was introduced. Much much worse.

You may not remember what it was like to share a small house with a few other people or live out of a bankbox, but it was bad.

First, I will agree there needs to be one client. I believe that ONE CLIENT needs to be in the 2D that the game engine spits out... not "RENDERED" 3D. The graphics in the 3D client aren't three-dimensional. So in my opinion, if they want to do just ONE client, let it be the 2D one unless they gut out their game engine. We're never going to see the likes of the newer games' graphics in this game, so why bother?!

To your second point... they can get rid of gold buyers very easily. They could sell this stuff on their website. Why should we, the players, have to be limited in this fashion to prevent cheaters? I should be able to play in more than one server if I wanted to and that includes my right to a house.

 

[Trebr Drab]

To your second point... they can get rid of gold buyers very easily. They could sell this stuff on their website. Why should we, the players, have to be limited in this fashion to prevent cheaters? I should be able to play in more than one server if I wanted to and that includes my right to a house.

Why wouldn't the gold farmers simply undersell the game store? In fact, for UO, they'd probably be very happy with the suddenly higher values of gold because UO would have set the price.

I believe that gold sellers would actually be very, very happy with games selling their gold themselves. It fixes the prices, and controls the inflation that they themselves cause. It also gives them a legitimacy in the arena of "player perspectives". They wouldn't be doing anything that the game itself doesn't do.

 

[Woodsman]

To your second point... they can get rid of gold buyers very easily. They could sell this stuff on their website. Why should we, the players, have to be limited in this fashion to prevent cheaters? I should be able to play in more than one server if I wanted to and that includes my right to a house.

Ignore the gold sellers for a moment. Pretend they don't exist. Pretend that EA banned them all or did something else to get rid of them.

What are you going to tell a vet or a new player when they ask how come all of the housing spots are gone when there are only forty or fifty thousand subscriptions still around?

A vet is going to come onto Stratics and ask how somebody with a $10 a month account can tie up a dozen or more houses, and people are going to respond with "isn't it awesome, we can now have a house on all the shards that we play on for a few hours a month or year!"

The vet will say some things that would be filtered out by Stratics' filters, and will leave and not come back. A new player is going to have an even bigger disappointment.

 

[Sargon]

Based on the results of this poll, I'm guessing the dev team will focus on new content.