• Hail Guest!
    We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
  • Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
  • Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
  • Hail Guest!
    Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!

Trammies won? :(

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
Sorry linko50 but the "argument" has already been done and done been done and done been done and done been done and done been done and done ...

if you can catch my drift ...


"Technically" ... on a win loss basis
"Blues" won a land of refuge
"Reds" lost easily slaughtered sheep ..

Reds WON possesion of fel ...
Blues were given a choice.

Griefing still exists on both sides of the gates
A little more can be done about some forms on the blue side (dependent on getting a GM to interceed ... different thread/theme)
On the red side of the gate "Player justice" ...well ... lack of mention, to this point ... oughta tell ya something ..I'd love to see/hear that it HAS been secretly ressurected and working ...till then ... its just another theory that remains unproven.


Moot piece/basis of the argument (moot in that, as in this thread ... it was what it was ... and "coulda been" is ONLY theory)
Wrongly implemented ... the split, the creation of tram.
As it was ... "reds" had to stay ... "blues" could choose.

To Say: "it would have been better"
NEEDS at least ONE case of implementation to PROVE the case ...
not likely to happen

Lacking any ONE case of implementation ...
The "argument" is doomed, destined, fated, designed and created ...
To ONLY be a theoretical discussion of theory.

The Theory, that one different implementation of the split ...
That Reds ... being Forced ... to move to the new lands (reds lose fel, blues win the "peace")
Has not as of yet (over many many years ... btw)
Produced one plausible scenario, in theory, that: "Where the reds ARE" is where the Growth will be ...

Theory: meet: the way things are.

.
carry on
 

Surgeries

Grand Poobah
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

then why doesnt uo boast about their current subscribers the way they use to?

[/ QUOTE ]

When UO had was the only MMORPG...no competition. Now there are bunches...of competition...and the most popular? MILLIONS of subscribers.

Nothing close to old UO. Old UO could never hold a candle to the subscription numbers of Consensual PvP games...in any case.

What part of that are you unable to comprehend?

All of it, I guess.

The darn Hands covering your eyes and ears are getting in the way, methinks. I will debate this with you, nor Sneaky any further...I would use the word "Debate" very loosely with Black Rain...naw...that is just too far off the scope...Debates involve the use of logic on both sides, and his posts exhibit not a lot of that, by my measure. Nor will I present any further evidence to you, after I end this final post. You will have none of it, even in your lap, so...you are stuck in your paradigm, and I in mine. But in closing, I will attempt, one more time, to demonstrate the folly of poorly adjusted, and/or skewed Paradigms, on any side.

Time has told, and will tell, whose filter, and paradigm, is working properly.

Paradigms are real funny things. The Swiss Watch makers know this, all too well.

So does Timex and Sanyo. Go research how Digital Quartz watches came into being...and then...apply the logic presented, to MMORPGs. Particularly when looking at the "Original" MMORPG, it's popularity, and subsequent competitors, and THEIR popularity.

The Non-Con side holds a very firm, albeit skewed, belief, that is NOT backed by reality, in the real world, by real companies, who have real subscribers, that pay money monthly, to play their games.

"That's not a Fun MMORPG!! THIS is!! Can't you SEE?? UO came FIRST, so it IS the way a game should be played!! It is the best way, with Non-Con PvP!! The proof is right there!!" Keeping in mind that the people that cry this th eloudest like to kill, and be killed by, other players...a Minority, by most Game Company standards to date.

Yeah right... Swiss Watch makers had like over 90% - NINETY PERCENT of ALL watch sales. Their own PEOPLE created Digital Quartz Watches...and the Company couldn't see that the old watches were now going to be obsolete. Dang Paradigms. Paradigms of what a REAL watch is precluded even protecting the Digital Watch...because it WASN'T a watch, based on their filters...no springs...no hands...not a watch.

It was a watch...within less than half the time UO has been alive, the Swiss lost a humongous share of their market share in watches...an absolutely HUGE percentage of it...

I fully understand that with your hands over your ears and eyes, this story, and it's meaning, carries little to no weight, and is likely to have the same effect as anything that tells you...Non-Con PvP is NOT the Way, if you want HUGE subscriber bases. SOME people like it, and will pay for it, but not NEARLY as many, as will play a Consensual ONLY PvP game...not nearly as many.

I know...I know...you, and the others think:

"If "They"...the Big Companies would just LISTEN!!", you adamantly state. If they would JUST make a Pre-Ren Game...SO many want to pay to play it!!" LOL.

You, and the others, somehow REALLY believe, that the big companies that love to make money are just somehow missing the opportunity to offer completely Non-Con PvP to the waiting millions? That with all the years they have had to watch attempts like Shadowbane and Fury demonstrate time after time that SOME love it, but not nearly enough? They are just too blind to see it YOUR way? That THEIR Paradigms must be the skewed ones, and yours are the accurate ones?

Well...nothing new, and not likely to change. I should attempt to understand that your paradigms are just too rigid, and the filter just too clogged, to allow objectivity, and understanding. But I, on the other hand, am persistent to a fault.

So...with you, and your tiny entourage of Stuck Paradigm Viewers, I will waste no more time.

I will however, close on this: If and when the masses are shown to be wrong...and we see a sudden upwelling and increase of completely Non-Con PvP Games, like uO used to be...I will come back here, in the forums, and sing your praises, whilst flagellating myself for a myopic, and skewed view of what the Paying world that produces actual Profits, REALLY wants.

Until then, I will play the game I have loved, in all it's forms over the last 10+ years, some more than others, quietly content, that sometimes, and so far in this case, I would seem to have gotten one right.
 
G

Guest

Guest
tell you what, a simple solution,

build one shard with those qualities, and watch what the population does....

and yes, you are right, all we have are the facts, and tell me which of the facts tell you that what you are saying is better? you cant point to a fact, all you can point at is the fact that it is this way.... so how could it be better another way.... and the only example of the other way you have is a game that was made like 8 years after, with ungodly better graphics, and a different pvp style.

point me to one fact that states that your way IS better, something that says that more people say that. and i will hush..... me, i can prove my statements with facts, and the people that will back up my opinion. you have the people to back up your opinion. now where are your facts......

ok, since i looked up Paradigm, and now understand what it means, arent there a few other words you could have used to fill the other 20 or so times you just used it...... i understand why you just used it, but there are other ways of making yourself feel smarter. and if that isnt why you used it, please, come down to our level, and speak to where we can understand without having too much hastle.... thank you einstein.

one more thing, i dont think they have the patience, or capabilities of returning uo to something similar to what it was while still letting people keep what they have now, and that i believe is the only reason it hasnt been turned. and dont be mistaken into thinking i or we dont like any of the changes, personally what i dont like is the fact that everything is item based, nothing takes talent now, or learning, everthing nowadays goes to people with small minds that cannot earn things, just like the guy up there in the post that is asking for someone to just hand him a powerscroll. i dont want to be in a game where you log in like on test center, and have everything in your bankbox for you to start out.... if risk/reward was outplayed, then there would be no goals, no reason to kill monsters, you may as well not even have a client side for storing anything, because it would be the same thing as if people just made their chars when they bought the game, and said, ok, i think i will just give myself a billion gold, and i am gm everything. what would be the difference....
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

you know what, these boards themselves prove it....

you have just as many people asking for old as you do saying it is awsome.....

why do you think that this is such a hot topic everytime it gets brought up.... you cant be that dense....

[/ QUOTE ]

That's flawed logic. The boards do not represent a significant number of the playerbase. They never have.
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

you know what, these boards themselves prove it....

you have just as many people asking for old as you do saying it is awsome.....

why do you think that this is such a hot topic everytime it gets brought up.... you cant be that dense....

[/ QUOTE ]
tsk tsk ... pretty sure you were cautioned about disparaging words such as dense ...

but SINCE we're on the subject of denseness
again
THAT question(you have just as many people asking for old as you do saying it is awsome)
IS addressed in the sticky FAQ up top ...
heeeeeers your linky
(see: retro)

read up!
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

then why doesnt uo boast about their current subscribers the way they use to?

[/ QUOTE ]

When UO had was the only MMORPG...no competition. Now there are bunches...of competition...and the most popular? MILLIONS of subscribers.

Nothing close to old UO. Old UO could never hold a candle to the subscription numbers of Consensual PvP games...in any case.

What part of that are you unable to comprehend?

All of it, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since focusing on Consensual PvP why hasn't Ultima Online garnered uber subscription numbers?

What proof do you have that the majority of people who would pay to play this game want Consensual PvP?

Again, if Consensual PvP is such a determining factor in the success of a videogame... then why doesn't UO have uber success since it has just that?!?


....

Well?
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
<blockquote><hr>



Since focusing on Consensual PvP why hasn't Ultima Online garnered uber subscription numbers?

What proof do you have that the majority of people who would pay to play this game want Consensual PvP?

Again, if Consensual PvP is such a determining factor in the success of a videogame... then why doesn't UO have uber success since it has just that?!?


....

Well?

[/ QUOTE ]

well
IF one were to drop out of the hyperbole for a bit ...

that UO exists is the ubber numbers

and purely on the numbers

which is MORE?

con? non con?
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



Since focusing on Consensual PvP why hasn't Ultima Online garnered uber subscription numbers?

What proof do you have that the majority of people who would pay to play this game want Consensual PvP?

Again, if Consensual PvP is such a determining factor in the success of a videogame... then why doesn't UO have uber success since it has just that?!?


....

Well?

[/ QUOTE ]

well
IF one were to drop out of the hyperbole for a bit ...

that UO exists is the ubber numbers

and purely on the numbers

which is MORE?

con? non con?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF one were to take note of the hyperbole that is subscription numbers for UOs lifetime.

that UO with trammel it subscriptions declined

that UO with no trammel it subscriptions increased

the more would be where the tangent to the curves lay

doth thou agree???
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



Since focusing on Consensual PvP why hasn't Ultima Online garnered uber subscription numbers?

What proof do you have that the majority of people who would pay to play this game want Consensual PvP?

Again, if Consensual PvP is such a determining factor in the success of a videogame... then why doesn't UO have uber success since it has just that?!?


....

Well?

[/ QUOTE ]

well
IF one were to drop out of the hyperbole for a bit ...

that UO exists is the ubber numbers

and purely on the numbers

which is MORE?

con? non con?

[/ QUOTE ]

tell you what, here is proof to the opposite..... from Aaron Cohen, the producer of ultima online

The new expansion, Kingdom Reborn, will thrill the faithfuls for sure, but more than that, the new game engine will convince ex-players to return to the game and give it another shot. If the overhauled features couldn't do the trick, then perhaps the non-consensual PvP features will . Nothing like a "no holds barred" match to keep the blood boiling.

Cohen also talked about the UO team being absorbed by EA Mythic studio, and he notes that he is thrilled to work with a team that "understands the importance of bringing new people into the game and keeping existing players happy". With EA Mythic gearing up for the release of Kingdom Reborn, the grand-daddy of MMOs will most likely be alive and kicking for the next decade or so.
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
<blockquote><hr>



tell you what, here is proof to the opposite..... from Aaron Cohen, the(former &lt;&lt; fixed, yw
) producer of ultima online

The new expansion, Kingdom Reborn, will thrill the faithfuls for sure, but more than that, the new game engine will convince ex-players to return to the game and give it another shot. If the overhauled features couldn't do the trick, then perhaps the non-consensual PvP features will . Nothing like a "no holds barred" match to keep the blood boiling.

Cohen also talked about the UO team being absorbed by EA Mythic studio, and he notes that he is thrilled to work with a team that "understands the importance of bringing new people into the game and keeping existing players happy". With EA Mythic gearing up for the release of Kingdom Reborn, the grand-daddy of MMOs will most likely be alive and kicking for the next decade or so.

[/ QUOTE ]



Proof?
to the opposite?

of WHAT ?

hehehehehe

hahahahahahah


hohohoho de lolololol

omg ...

why didn't you bring THAT proof out in the beginging ...

hehehehe

No ONE would have argued that you were right ..

hehehehehehee

oh crappp

multiple cramps


hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
G

Guest

Guest
really an arogant additude about where you play uo is about as stupid as it gets ok all players pay the rent on the shards.

most folks who want to brag up the fact they play fel and are pure fel players find them selfs w/o a word once a siege player speaks up. no matter what facet you play keep in mind its a game and if you meet a skilless trammie and you slay him give him his stuff and ask him if he knows how to pvp and if not would he like to learn then show him with respect,

thats how you get more players in fel - its called hospitality.
 
I

imported_Skrag

Guest
You're pathetic, Sneaky. You're so desperate to prove that your form of PVP is viable that it's downright hilarious. I mean your two big "examples" are a few pirate shards of an existing MMO, and some obscure Australian game that's so "successful" that they're giving it away for free after firing everyone who made it.

I mean, sure, whatever. The MMO industry is going to decide that Fury is awesome, charging $0 for games and getting fired are great choices to make, and pretty soon everyone will realize some UO gankage from the Clinton era was the best PVP ever, and that you were right. Yep, aaaaany year now that'll happen.
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
<blockquote><hr>



IF one were to take note of the hyperbole that is subscription numbers for UOs lifetime.

that UO with trammel it subscriptions declined

that UO with no trammel it subscriptions increased

the more would be where the tangent to the curves lay

doth thou agree???

[/ QUOTE ]


hyperbole
NOT
hyperbolic paraboloid or hyperbolic funtion (curve analysis) ...
what is NOT shown ... but IS known ... is the massive amount of "churn" in subscription numbers ... that CAUSED "tram" to be implemented ...
oops! did you forget that some thought actually went into implementing tram ?
IE. was a willy nilly lets see what happens if ... type of Dev trick? tsk! more study for you!


What the charts DO show ... is that most games have hit a peak in subscriptions (not WoW, Runescape, Dofus, tibia... yet) and then begin to Decline ... with some hiccups, yep... overall though
none really show either a plateau(constant) or, a consistant "re-cline"(idle then return to increasing) ...
overall: peak ...decline ... seems sorta ... natural

(btw ... does WoW, Runescape, Dofus, tibia ... non-peak ... HELP your position?
hehe, I think not.)

so:
no

I doth not find an agreeable analysis in thine statement.
I disagree
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

You're pathetic, Sneaky. You're so desperate to prove that your form of PVP is viable that it's downright hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooooo.... what's your point?

He has good points and you have nothing but name-calling.

Riddle me this... if Trammel is soooo successful in the gaming industry, why doesn't UO have oodles of subscribers????

Why did Star Wars Galaxies flop?

Why does UO have Non-consensual free servers that rival the populations of UO's Consensual servers if Trammel is sooooo good?

Tell me guru's of the gaming world... if having Consensual PvP in a videogame is sooooo important in garnering subscriptions, then why isn't UO steadily gaining subscribers?

Why does Lineage have over a million subscribers if Non-Consensual PvP doesn't bring in paying customers?

Why aren't any one of you "Yay Trammel" folks able to answer a single one of my questions?

...
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>



Ah! sorry ... though you missed it ... others answered my question ...
I had capitalized the first M of MMO ... to inquire about how Massively multiplayer online it is(was)
Numbers ... like players, servers, continents served ...
How Massively multiplayer online ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Fury is an MMO, I don't know how else to put it lol, it is not your traditional MMO thats for sure, but it fits the criteria IMO. It has elements of other styles of games in there, but first and foremost it is an MMO.

<blockquote><hr>


The tons of money aspect ... yeah ... was a trap ...
A FAIR one ... trap wise ... a trap ... none the less.
FAIR in that: equal potential to snap ME ... as it was to snap shut on you.



[/ QUOTE ]

*uses detect hidden to spring teh trap*

<blockquote><hr>


Your "premise" That Purely PvP themed games can/would be ...THE most succesful


[/ QUOTE ]

WOW WOW WOW. Hang on, I never said anything of the sort, I said that Trammel was not necessary. Huge difference.

<blockquote><hr>


If only they would make one ...



[/ QUOTE ]

'They' have...

<blockquote><hr>


STILL remains "untested"
Money wise ... to be the most succesful ... gonna need beat WoW ... yes?
Number's wise, WoW is still in there ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, having played WoW I would not actually wan't UO, or any other game for that matter, to aspire to be anything like WoW, its a terrible game.

In terms of subscriptions though, yes to be the most popular you would have to beat WoW.

<blockquote><hr>


Along with Runescape ... *snap!* (There are currently 212244 people playing!)


[/ QUOTE ]

...Im not even going to START on that game....

<blockquote><hr>


Caught cha! ...

IF your "proof" (fury) HAD either numbers or money ... erk! I would be wrong ...(slim chance ... I built the trap, but, nonetheless ...could have caught me &lt;&lt;ie. FAIR )


[/ QUOTE ]

*runs away* Can never catch me! :p

Fury was not my only example. See Free shards, if you need more convincing, or goto SP.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

You're pathetic, Sneaky. You're so desperate to prove that your form of PVP is viable that it's downright hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooooo.... what's your point?

He has good points and you have nothing but name-calling.

Riddle me this... if Trammel is soooo successful in the gaming industry, why doesn't UO have oodles of subscribers????

Why did Star Wars Galaxies flop?

Why does UO have Non-consensual free servers that rival the populations of UO's Consensual servers if Trammel is sooooo good?

Tell me guru's of the gaming world... if having Consensual PvP in a videogame is sooooo important in garnering subscriptions, then why isn't UO steadily gaining subscribers?

Why does Lineage have over a million subscribers if Non-Consensual PvP doesn't bring in paying customers?

Why aren't any one of you "Yay Trammel" folks able to answer a single one of my questions?

...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are there more "YAH Trammel" folks then your "I WANT IT MY WAY PVPERS" posting?

This debate has gone around and around, and your pointing your sticks and pitch forks at the wrong people if you want something changed you should be taking it up with the devs. Not with people who are happy playing the game as it is...and trying to belittle there player style. That will certainly not win you any votes or help to achieve changes you wan't.

Bottom line, get together with like minded people put together a post with some respect and fact behind it and address it to the devs they will either listen or not...but I am pretty sure everyone else is sick of the same old trammie bashing posts.

YOU like PVP and FEL........Others like PVM and Trammel....Both are acceptable player styles.....get use to it and get over it.

The game allows both options if you want changes made to your rule set...fine!! but there is a way to go about it and attacking other player styles is just not going to get it done no matter how many times the debate goes around.
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

a few pirate shards

[/ QUOTE ]

There are FAR FAR FAR FAR more free shards out there than 'real' shards, hardly a 'few.' Keep ignoring the issue though.
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>


Why are there more "YAH Trammel" folks then your "I WANT IT MY WAY PVPERS" posting?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of 'us' have quit this game in frustration, most of them long ago. They now make up the populations of the free shards. Go post on one of their forums, I bet you will find the reverse of what you find here. If there is one thing you can be sure about free sharders, its that they love a good pancake about EA
.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



IF one were to take note of the hyperbole that is subscription numbers for UOs lifetime.

that UO with trammel it subscriptions declined

that UO with no trammel it subscriptions increased

the more would be where the tangent to the curves lay

doth thou agree???

[/ QUOTE ]


hyperbole
NOT
hyperbolic paraboloid or hyperbolic funtion (curve analysis) ...
what is NOT shown ... but IS known ... is the massive amount of "churn" in subscription numbers ... that CAUSED "tram" to be implemented ...
oops! did you forget that some thought actually went into implementing tram ?
IE. was a willy nilly lets see what happens if ... type of Dev trick? tsk! more study for you!


[/ QUOTE ]

Cleaver haiku's make for silly points... isn't it rational to suspect the non-thought process of a humans mind went into the design of trammel, if only we can admit that this process does in fact, take some thought to accomplish?

I garner to wage that it was a suit and tie that made the call after consultation and looking at numbers placed the business model into affect along with the notion that those who created the game, did not create trammel... therefore little consideration to the design of the game was considered.


<blockquote><hr>

What the charts DO show ... is that most games have hit a peak in subscriptions (not WoW, Runescape, Dofus, tibia... yet) and then begin to Decline ... with some hiccups, yep... overall though
none really show either a plateau(constant) or, a consistant "re-cline"(idle then return to increasing) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "speak" is easier to understand in complete sentences so allow me to summarize:

What the charts DO show ... is that when there was no trammel, UO's subscriptions continued to rise indicating that UO had not hit it's peak... and further more ... that shortly after the creation of trammel (within 2 years) the subscriptions for UO peaked.

let see;

if no facts show that consensual pvp had negatively impacted the growth of this game (evidence found such as a loss in total subscription numbers) then how is it surmised that non-consensual can't or couldn't garner more success for Ultima Online than Consensual PvP?

more facts

lord blackthorns revenge made it so that an account could only own 1 house per shard... increasing the number of subscriptions per player who wanted to own more than 1 home... as well, AoS changed housing even further to 1 house per account... making it even more so inflated. Thus, subscriptions actually peaked sooner rather than later from the extenuating circumstances that couple this time period

This indicates with reverse thinking that prior to these changes, total subscriptions were more in line with total number of players since it is a widely known fact that the majority who moved to trammel... moved there to place a new house... not to escape the non-consensual PvP environment.

felucca housing space remaining to be full for quite some time afterwards verified this.

Also, it remains that there is a large player base that still plays a felucca-only version of UO... further fortifying the claim that there is a large desire for an Ultima Online that focuses on non-consensual PvP rather than consensual PvP....

the argument being made does not say that there is no desire for Consensual PvP oriented Ultima Online... only via the facts the argument indicates that Consensual PvP UO has hit subscription saturation and non-consensual PvP UO had and even more firmly has not...

<blockquote><hr>

overall: peak ...decline ... seems sorta ... natural

(btw ... does WoW, Runescape, Dofus, tibia ... non-peak ... HELP your position?
hehe, I think not.)

[/ QUOTE ]

btw, we do not play WoW, Runescape, Dofus or tibia... so I do not know how they would not help my position.

<blockquote><hr>


so:
no

I doth not find an agreeable analysis in thine statement.
I disagree

[/ QUOTE ]

but you forgot to indicate with what you disagree.

If you disagree, for simply the sake of disagreement then I concede agreement.

Otherwise, riddle me this oh fayled won...

If Consensual PvP is such a determining factor in the success of a game, then why hasn't it garnered UO the success one would expect to see from such an important element of MMO's?

?!?

hoho!
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

Bottom line, get together with like minded people put together a post with some respect and fact behind it and address it to the devs they will either listen or not...but I am pretty sure everyone else is sick of the same old trammie bashing posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... and that is the point of this entire thread. The problem (and the 9 pages this thread has stretched to) is the fact that those who are not like-minded felt the need to add their two cents.

The rest of us are ughm... defending our dollars so to speak.

<blockquote><hr>

YOU like PVP and FEL........Others like PVM and Trammel....Both are acceptable player styles.....get use to it and get over it.

The game allows both options if you want changes made to your rule set...fine!! but there is a way to go about it and attacking other player styles is just not going to get it done no matter how many times the debate goes around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that both playstyles have a place in UO and deserve a proper one.

I however, do not agree that both have the same options to play their respective playstyles as one playstyle (trammy) has influenced too much of the respective other.

We are here asking that what has spilled over be cleaned up and fixed so we can get back to enjoying our game and allow you all to stop hearing about it.

If that is too much to ask, then simply do not click the hyperlink that leads you to read this thread.
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
nope ... STILL caught cha,
yep fury looks like it was mostly PvP ... and MMO ...
Now ... back to the point ... Was it AS succesful as ...mmmm... UO?


caught cha ... trap "was" empty ... but that was because there was NOTHING there
ie. your argument

no substance
sorry

free shards? yeah .. heard of them ... wonder how they're gonna handle the recent development of some states taxing internet subscriptions ...
oh, I know ... "No fees"
well ...we'll see if ALL states agree ... should be safe, if indeed .. NO items of value change hands .. NO owned information is being charged for ... we'll see.

Siege? oh! have they suddenly become over populated? sheesh! I missed that ...
 
I

imported_Prince Erik

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

You're pathetic, Sneaky. You're so desperate to prove that your form of PVP is viable that it's downright hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooooo.... what's your point?

He has good points and you have nothing but name-calling.

Riddle me this... if Trammel is soooo successful in the gaming industry, why doesn't UO have oodles of subscribers????

Why did Star Wars Galaxies flop?

Why does UO have Non-consensual free servers that rival the populations of UO's Consensual servers if Trammel is sooooo good?

Tell me guru's of the gaming world... if having Consensual PvP in a videogame is sooooo important in garnering subscriptions, then why isn't UO steadily gaining subscribers?

Why does Lineage have over a million subscribers if Non-Consensual PvP doesn't bring in paying customers?

Why aren't any one of you "Yay Trammel" folks able to answer a single one of my questions?

...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... if I remember my college logic courses you're asking questions that cannot be refuted given the definitions of causality. You're reducing every game to a simple postulate - that pvp is the sole measure of success for any online game and demanding proof that cannot exist within that framework.

Star Wars Galaxies has some few parameters compatible with UO yet you use it as an example of causality i.e. the fact that Star Wars had no pvp caused it to fail discounting other possible factors in its demise. It will be hard to prove in any way that UO's subscription numbers over time were 100% related to any kind of pvp or lack of it.

I could just as easily say "UO has been declining in subscriptions because its box is not red and both Lineage and WoW have read boxes. CHANGE THE BOX COLOR ALREADY!"


Just my observations - of course. I personally believe that supporting either side in this arguement is pure folly since the whole arguement is based on unproven conjecture and unsupportable theories without any roots in conditional probability.

-P.E.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


Why are there more "YAH Trammel" folks then your "I WANT IT MY WAY PVPERS" posting?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because most of 'us' have quit this game in frustration, most of them long ago. They now make up the populations of the free shards. Go post on one of their forums, I bet you will find the reverse of what you find here. If there is one thing you can be sure about free sharders, its that they love a good pancake about EA
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay then if so many of you have quit in frustration and you are the main player style and "how the game should be" then why is UO still going? Why has EA not done the changes needed to keep the masses of players? Answer because you are not the only player style and not the main focus or purpose of the game.

I have no doubt there are 100's of thousands of pirated shards and that people play there...but you will also find alot of people play there as they do not wish to pay for the game monthly, so are willing to settle for what ever they can get on the free shards. Yes some have gone to free shards because they liked the game a certain way or like to add things that EA haven't and that is the only way they can get it that way. And that is there choice to do so.

But it dose not change the fact that trammie bashing, and slagging off at EA and everyone else is not the way to go about getting the changes you want implimented by the devs.

If your all really serious about wanting the changes and wanting the game or at least an aspect of the game a certain way and there are SO MANY of you that want this......start a respectful thread and address the issues show support for each other and tactfully and respectfully make your plea.......if then they choose to ignore you ALL.

Then it is not the game for you, or that you remember and wont be again so move on. But this continued round and round argument and attack on trammies and pvpers alike is just stupid and will get you no where.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

You're pathetic, Sneaky. You're so desperate to prove that your form of PVP is viable that it's downright hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooooo.... what's your point?

He has good points and you have nothing but name-calling.

Riddle me this... if Trammel is soooo successful in the gaming industry, why doesn't UO have oodles of subscribers????

Why did Star Wars Galaxies flop?

Why does UO have Non-consensual free servers that rival the populations of UO's Consensual servers if Trammel is sooooo good?

Tell me guru's of the gaming world... if having Consensual PvP in a videogame is sooooo important in garnering subscriptions, then why isn't UO steadily gaining subscribers?

Why does Lineage have over a million subscribers if Non-Consensual PvP doesn't bring in paying customers?

Why aren't any one of you "Yay Trammel" folks able to answer a single one of my questions?

...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... if I remember my college logic courses you're asking questions that cannot be refuted given the definitions of causality. You're reducing every game to a simple postulate - that pvp is the sole measure of success for any online game and demanding proof that cannot exist within that framework.

Star Wars Galaxies has some few parameters compatible with UO yet you use it as an example of causality i.e. the fact that Star Wars had no pvp caused it to fail discounting other possible factors in its demise. It will be hard to prove in any way that UO's subscription numbers over time were 100% related to any kind of pvp or lack of it.

I could just as easily say "UO has been declining in subscriptions because its box is not red and both Lineage and WoW have read boxes. CHANGE THE BOX COLOR ALREADY!"


Just my observations - of course. I personally believe that supporting either side in this arguement is pure folly since the whole arguement is based on unproven conjecture and unsupportable theories without any roots in conditional probability.

-P.E.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very good P.E.

My argument was simply to counter the argument that Consensual PvP is an essential part of Ultima Online and required for it's success.

The data and facts indicate nothing of the sort and actually indicate that there is just as much a place for Non-Consensual PvP as there is Consensual PvP in this game... they should BOTH have equal amounts of attention devoted to them... which they do not.

My position is that this should change until Non-Consensual PvP has been given the proper amount of attention it deserves...

SOOOO

You win the cookie!


but realize, you still didn't figure out what my and my compatriot's argument... actually was.
 
I

imported_Skrag

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

Riddle me this... if Trammel is soooo successful in the gaming industry, why doesn't UO have oodles of subscribers????

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's ten years old and has Super Nintendo graphics. The mere fact that it's still going AT ALL after this long says a lot.

<blockquote><hr>

Why did Star Wars Galaxies flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it was designed badly. I love Star Wars, but I could never make myself play it.

<blockquote><hr>

Why does UO have Non-consensual free servers that rival the populations of UO's Consensual servers if Trammel is sooooo good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're FREE. Also, about 95% of freeshards are empty. There are a few with large numbers of players, but it's open to speculation how many of them at any one time are just bots.

But seriously, it's not hard to get people to log onto something when you're A) stealing most of it from an existing commercial MMO and B) giving it away FOR FREE.

<blockquote><hr>

Tell me guru's of the gaming world... if having Consensual PvP in a videogame is sooooo important in garnering subscriptions, then why isn't UO steadily gaining subscribers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's ten years old and has Super Nintendo graphics.

<blockquote><hr>

Why does Lineage have over a million subscribers if Non-Consensual PvP doesn't bring in paying customers?

[/ QUOTE ]

They like their PVP in Korea, more than they do everywhere else. That aside, Lineage sells accounts in bulk to Korean internet cafes, who then frequently give those accounts away to get people in the door and paying for bandwidth. Some guy walks into a cafe and takes ten accounts for free, pays an hourly fee for use of the computer, bam, Lineage reports ten "subscriptions". It's not a million people all paying a subscription fee like a normal MMO.

Face it, they nerfed your crap eight years ago and nobody in the industry regrets it.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>


If your all really serious about wanting the changes and wanting the game or at least an aspect of the game a certain way and there are SO MANY of you that want this......start a respectful thread and address the issues show support for each other and tactfully and respectfully make your plea.......if then they choose to ignore you ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps, maybe I should have posted this post on UO Hall?

http://boards.stratics.com/php-bin/uo/showflat.php?Cat=4&amp;Board=uosiegeperil&amp;Number=7607632&amp;Forum=f169&amp;Words=Dev&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=7607632&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=291855&amp;daterange=1&amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=1&amp;oldertype=w&amp;bodyprev=#Post7607632
 
I

imported_Prince Erik

Guest
In that context I surely agree with you. I believe all play styles in UO are equally valid and that care needs to be taken by the dev team to address issues pertinent to them all. That's a tough job, of course, and to do so without judging the validity of a play style is necessary. For UO to rebound and increase both its fiscal position and its relevance in the industry it can't afford to lose any significant subset of its player base.. of course it also has to bring in new players but that's another discussion in itself. Maybe a red box?


-P.E.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


If your all really serious about wanting the changes and wanting the game or at least an aspect of the game a certain way and there are SO MANY of you that want this......start a respectful thread and address the issues show support for each other and tactfully and respectfully make your plea.......if then they choose to ignore you ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps, maybe I should have posted this post on UO Hall?

http://boards.stratics.com/php-bin/uo/showflat.php?Cat=4&amp;Board=uosiegeperil&amp;Number=7607632&amp;Forum=f169&amp;Words=Dev&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=7607632&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=291855&amp;daterange=1&amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=1&amp;oldertype=w&amp;bodyprev=#Post7607632

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe you should have, but again I would read my post I did say RESPECTFUL AND TACTFUL. I personally would not consider all your wording in that post either. Just keep in mind the "more flies with honey" quote and you may get some where.

Good Luck wording a better request to the Dev's if there are truly so many unhappy pvpers out there hopefully you can get some changes to make the game enjoyable for you...But I doubt they are going to toss out a whole other player style just to make some happy.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

again I would read my post I did say RESPECTFUL AND TACTFUL. I personally would not consider all your wording in that post either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and after 10 years of neglect... my frustration comes out in my wording at times... I will be sure to clean it up!
 
F

Fayled Dhreams

Guest
seldom need ask this ... but are you stoned? or just trying too hard?
doesn't matter, really doesn't.

but you forgot to indicate with what you disagree.


its CLEAR in your quote of me ... that where you asked
doth thou agree???

That I had replied:

so:
no

I doth not find an agreeable analysis in thine statement.
I disagree(with YOUR analysis in toto)

pretty simple
*shrugs*

now
IF your actual position is:
"My position is that this should change until Non-Consensual PvP has been given the proper amount of attention it deserves... "

STICK with that ...
it is a simpler argument to present ...
more focused ...
what you want ... and how to get there ...
can be argued independently of the "rest of the world and history"
just stick to what you want ... and how to get there ...

simpler still
You can drop the part of the argument:
Because we've been neglected ...(has been given the proper amount of attention it deserves)
just stick to what you want ... and how to get there ...
piece by piece, system by system ...
never mind where you think you are "in line"
where you think you ought to be ...


worked for the "make morph long term" guy

THIS other kinda ... *ahem* "debate" ...
hasn't gotten much for "your side"
time for a change of tactics ... ya think?

just stick to what you want ... and how to get there ...

couldn't HURT ... won't be instantaneous ... you could return to beating the same dead horse any time ...


just saying


PS: psssst! weren't no haiku in there either ... why I considered the possibility you were ... inebriated
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

nope ... STILL caught cha,
yep fury looks like it was mostly PvP ... and MMO ...
Now ... back to the point ... Was it AS succesful as ...mmmm... UO?



[/ QUOTE ]

Nah not even close, UO &gt; Fury, but then again Fury has only been out a few months, UO is past 10 years, kinda has a bit of a head start. Having said that I don't think Fury, even with 10 years of history could beat UO ever.

<blockquote><hr>


caught cha ... trap "was" empty ... but that was because there was NOTHING there
ie. your argument

no substance
sorry


[/ QUOTE ]

No matter Fury's issues (and I will admit it has a few) it is still a decent game, played by a decent player base (not sure how big but there always seems to be a lot online).

<blockquote><hr>


free shards? yeah .. heard of them ... wonder how they're gonna handle the recent development of some states taxing internet subscriptions ...
oh, I know ... "No fees"
well ...we'll see if ALL states agree ... should be safe, if indeed .. NO items of value change hands .. NO owned information is being charged for ... we'll see.


[/ QUOTE ]

Free shards can't charge for subscriptions because that would make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to easy for EA so sue them. Profiting from someone else's work without consent is illegal and usually gets the victim (in this case EA) pretty pissed. If I was a free shard owner, I know I would not wan't EA (a huge wealthy company, who can no doubt hire the best lawyers money can buy) trying to sue me. Would you?

<blockquote><hr>


Siege? oh! have they suddenly become over populated? sheesh! I missed that ...


[/ QUOTE ]

I assure you the reason myself and many like me DON'T play SP/Mug is because of one of the following reasons, and not because of a lack of Trammel;

Lag, I live in Australia, so this probably just applies to me, and others like me located far away from the server.

Age of Shadows as many have stated in this thread, AoS was another extremely BAD thing to happen to UO, a true classic shard would have no AoS item system, SP has AoS.

Some people just don't like the SP rule set (all fel), thats fine too.


SP's population or lack their of aside, SP is an example of a functioning shard that has no Trammel, it defeats without doubt the argument that UO without Trammel does not exist anymore. It is right there in your shard selection screen for you all to see.

If Stratics' RoC aloud it I would link to the free shard's websites too, because they also prove that UO without Trammel works, but I guess you are just going to have to find out about them your self's. Google knows all.
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>


I have no doubt there are 100's of thousands of pirated shards and that people play there...but you will also find alot of people play there as they do not wish to pay for the game monthly, so are willing to settle for what ever they can get on the free shards. Yes some have gone to free shards because they liked the game a certain way or like to add things that EA haven't and that is the only way they can get it that way. And that is there choice to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Amathist. There are free shards that are complete replica's of current UO. That means patch 6.0.6.1 and the latest publish. Guess what though, the t2a replica shard has more players...

People that want to play the UO that you and I play right now can, on free shards, and some do, quite a few in fact, but MORE play without Trammel on a t2a shard.


*edit* Just to let ya know, the top free shard, has over 100,000 active accounts, or so they claim.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

seldom need ask this ... but are you stoned? or just trying too hard?
doesn't matter, really doesn't.

but you forgot to indicate with what you disagree.


just saying

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not that I forgot to indicate with what I disagree... it mayhaps was that you had forgot to read it (start at the begining of this thread and take all of my posts as one argument... not just the ones you've responded to.)

<blockquote><hr>


PS: psssst! weren't no haiku in there either ... why I considered the possibility you were ... inebriated

[/ QUOTE ]

haiku is the closest way to describe your writing style as it is broken up and stretched very thin...

you might have more success in not confusing the audience if you completed your sentences.

for your examples
you have enough time
points are broken up but made together
so much time wasted
smoke and mirrors

i often wonder if you're inebriated as the focus of your additions are so narrowly fine tuned that they consistantly miss the big picture

or the big picture is missed on your fine tuned points

either way, have a wonderful night!
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


I have no doubt there are 100's of thousands of pirated shards and that people play there...but you will also find alot of people play there as they do not wish to pay for the game monthly, so are willing to settle for what ever they can get on the free shards. Yes some have gone to free shards because they liked the game a certain way or like to add things that EA haven't and that is the only way they can get it that way. And that is there choice to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Amathist. There are free shards that are complete replica's of current UO. That means patch 6.0.6.1 and the latest publish. Guess what though, the t2a replica shard has more players...

People that want to play the UO that you and I play right now can, on free shards, and some do, quite a few in fact, but MORE play without Trammel on a t2a shard.


*edit* Just to let ya know, the top free shard, has over 100,000 active accounts, or so they claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know why you say NO Amathist, I did not say there were not free shards that where like UO is today, I just made the comment that alot of free shards have custom content. And I did not say that more people did not play one free shard to another.........but again you miss the point regardless of what others do the point is you want this UO changed you want this UO reverted and the fact is that it will not happen....especially by trammie bashing.

Sure changes may be made to increase the enjoyment of PvP and life in fel but there just is no reason to think that EA would consider erasing trammel as we know it. There are many player styles in UO and ea tries to accommodate them all hence the creation of trammel...........if your player style is lacking do something about it take a positive stance do not bag out every other style cause you think it will get you your own way.

That has been the only thing I have been saying all along...and will continue to say. I enjoy fel I enjoy tram I enjoy everything about UO.
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>


I do not know why you say NO Amathist, I did not say there were not free shards that where like UO is today, I just made the comment that alot of free shards have custom content.


[/ QUOTE ]

You were implying that people just played whatever they could get because it is free, which is wrong. They play what they wan't because there is seriously that much choice out there. If people want to play modern UO they can, if they want to play t2a UO they can too. See my point?

<blockquote><hr>


And I did not say that more people did not play one free shard to another.........but again you miss the point regardless of what others do the point is you want this UO changed you want this UO reverted and the fact is that it will not happen....especially by trammie bashing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it clear that you have not read the whole thread. Go back and read some of my posts, you will find that is not what I'm saying at all, and its not what most of us are saying either. All we want is some attention to be given to our play style, as opposed to what has happend in the past.

No body in this thread has ever even mentioned reverting UO, except you (apart from with relation to free shards).

<blockquote><hr>


Sure changes may be made to increase the enjoyment of PvP and life in fel but there just is no reason to think that EA would consider erasing trammel as we know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above. READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE YOU START TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK AND WANT!

<blockquote><hr>


There are many player styles in UO and ea tries to accommodate them all hence the creation of trammel...........if your player style is lacking do something about it take a positive stance do not bag out every other style cause you think it will get you your own way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, positive action is needed! Oh and we haven't been bagging out other peoples play styles, its us that get called 'grifers' repeatedly for engadgeing in our play style. All we want is the same equal, fair attention that Trammel gets, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you haven't read the rest of the thread...

<blockquote><hr>


That has been the only thing I have been saying all along...and will continue to say. I enjoy fel I enjoy tram I enjoy everything about UO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issues with this statement :p
 
S

SirBruce

Guest
As the guy who runs MMOGCHART.COM (home of one of those lovely charts posted earlier) and who has the historic UO subscription numbers, I can tell you exactly what killed UO, and it wasn't the Trammel. Numbers kept going up long after Trammel was a reality. UO had 185K subs in May 2000 when UO:R came out, and were up at 235K in March 2001.

The first thing that hurt the game was UO:Third Dawn, and its many bugs and horrible 3D client. UO's growth pretty much flatlined after that, with a few ups and down, but it managed to hold on to most of its subscribers through to June 2003 when it was actually up to 250K subscribers.

But by then UO was nearly 6 years old, and most MMOGs start to go into decline by then. 2003 also saw a large number of new MMOGs come out, most of which were not successful, but which surely pulled away subscriber interest from the old 2D UO. But what really put the nail in the coffin of UO was UO: Age of Shadows, which came out in February 2003. UO got a brief surge after that, but subscriptions quickly began going down sometime between June 2003 and February 2004.

Yes, there is a small minority who liked pre-Trammel UO. No, bringing it back won't get UO 250K subscribers again. The ship has sailed.

Bruce
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>


I do not know why you say NO Amathist, I did not say there were not free shards that where like UO is today, I just made the comment that alot of free shards have custom content.


[/ QUOTE ]

You were implying that people just played whatever they could get because it is free, which is wrong. They play what they wan't because there is seriously that much choice out there. If people want to play modern UO they can, if they want to play t2a UO they can too. See my point?

<font color="red"> I implied no such thing I did say it was ONE reason I did not claim it to be the only reason. So since you stand highly on others not telling you what you think give me the same respect, I did say people would be happy to play on fel shards if they had no other option yes and that some play on fel only shards because it is a choice just as some play on shard simply because they have cool custom graphics...but as you stated they do have a choice, so do you see my point....</font>

<blockquote><hr>


And I did not say that more people did not play one free shard to another.........but again you miss the point regardless of what others do the point is you want this UO changed you want this UO reverted and the fact is that it will not happen....especially by trammie bashing.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it clear that you have not read the whole thread. Go back and read some of my posts, you will find that is not what I'm saying at all, and its not what most of us are saying either. All we want is some attention to be given to our play style, as opposed to what has happend in the past.

No body in this thread has ever even mentioned reverting UO, except you (apart from with relation to free shards).

<font color="red"> I have read the thread and pretty much every thread like it repeatedly, so do not try and belittle me with little witty remarks. Take the time read the TITLE of the thread it begins with trammie bashing.

As for not wanting the shard reverted, what do you think it would mean to have no trammel??? Would that not be a revert to days of old? And that is exactly what you imply to be the benefit of these so very popular free shards that everyone is leaving to go play, so if this is not how you feel perhaps make it clearer.

As for wanting attention for your play style great wonderful but do something constructive about it start a post that does not contain trammie bashing or pvp verse pvm and every other play style and be pro active in a respectful tactful manner not just tag along on a thread that lost interest to most people pages ago.

Basically give up wasting time pulling mine and anyone else's post apart and prove you want to do some good for PVP and the fel life style..Put your money where your mouth is so to speak. If enough of you did that you would a) gain more respect b) have more chance of being listened to c) may actually get something done. </font>

<blockquote><hr>


Sure changes may be made to increase the enjoyment of PvP and life in fel but there just is no reason to think that EA would consider erasing trammel as we know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above. READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE YOU START TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK AND WANT!

<font color="red"> CAPITALS DO NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT...so feel free to use normal text and be less insulting as I am not blind. </font>

<blockquote><hr>


There are many player styles in UO and ea tries to accommodate them all hence the creation of trammel...........if your player style is lacking do something about it take a positive stance do not bag out every other style cause you think it will get you your own way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, positive action is needed! Oh and we haven't been bagging out other peoples play styles, its us that get called 'grifers' repeatedly for engadgeing in our play style. All we want is the same equal, fair attention that Trammel gets, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you haven't read the rest of the thread...
<font color="red"> What is the title of the thread????? and I never once uttered the word grifer or anything remotely derogatory towards anyone. And again I say if this is what you want go about it the right way from the start. And again stop trying to belittle me with low level wit it wont work. It is that that drags this thread and every thread like this down and makes you un heard. </font>

<blockquote><hr>


That has been the only thing I have been saying all along...and will continue to say. I enjoy fel I enjoy tram I enjoy everything about UO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no issues with this statement :p
<font color="red"> Glad you can try and be non argumentative about something but perhaps rather then be on the attack you may take the time to read my words and let them sink in. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
 

Stigmatas

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Look kids! It's SirBruce!

Holy [censored]! He said Trammel didn't kill UO! But that makes all the people who thought it did, wrong!

As wrong today as they have been for the last several freaking years.

Trammies won! yay!
 
B

Babble

Guest
From a business standpoint he is right.

What I do not understand from the pvp point of view is that they have shards and do not use them.

There all kinds of shards out there for pvp and all areas ancient with no lockdowns, to p15/16 rules.
EA offers Siege which is aos with no insurance and still pvpers do say there is no shard for them.
 
G

Guest

Guest
And do those figures record the difference between active played accounts and the accounts of players waiting to see if it gets better and multiple accounts? I knew a lot of friends who kept their accounts going for a good while before finally quitting.

Trammel did make a huge difference to UO, but not every player quit outright when it opened. Heck I've been hoping it wasn't a bad dream ever since, the same with Malas.

I just wouldn't rely on those charts as absolute proof of anything.

Wenchy
 

Sneaky Que

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>


See above. READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE YOU START TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK AND WANT!
<blockquote><hr>


CAPITALS DO NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT...so feel free to use normal text and be less insulting as I am not blind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Amathist, I think I know what my own opinion is, I will say again, go back and take the time to read the thread, if you cant be bothered I understand, its a long thread, but don't take up an argument without knowing what your opponents point of view is.

I'm not trammie bashing, I don't want UO reverted, I don't wan't to change your play style, all I wan't to see is some improvements for my play style. Comprehend?

It is the Trammies that have been doing most of the 'bashing' in this thread.

We 'Fellies' keep getting told that our playstyle is not viable, we are griefers and that UO would not of survived without Trammel. All of which are 1000% wrong.

<font color=red>Typing in red does not make you right, either, BTW.</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
RTLFC

The old trammel vs Fellucca war.

WHO IS KILLING UO????

Lets take a step back and think about it.

We will always have those who think pvp is evil and should be removed from the game.
We will always have those who think PvPers are the absolute scum of the earth. I was told by a 'trammy' that "my parents neglected me to give me an urge to kill someone in a game" As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't have been sitting at an idoc by themselves on a beetle in felluca and not willing to fight for it.

We will always have the fellucans who hate the trammies because in their opinion trammel ruined the game.
There will always be the players who think its fun to grief and to kill anyone at will in felluca. Like me.

The only thing that bugs me in this whole debate is that although all PvPers recognize that there is a need for PvM in the game. There is PvMers who do not recognize that PvP doesn't belong in UO. UO was made to incorporate pvp from the start. You don't like it? Don't do it. Don't whinge about it either.

So back to the original question Who is killing UO??

The answer? Everyone. Yes thats right. From me who has recently quit thanks to getting to addicted to the game and wasting my life on it, to the "trammy" who considers Pks as low as child molesters, to the smacktalking kiddys who's parents have used UO as a babysitter.

Everyone is to blame. Every playstyle can (will and does) put blame on others for making the game how it is today.

Only ones I dont think are to blame are the Devs. They work with what they are given by EA. They dont always make decisions that certain playstyles happy, but every decision will make someone happy.
 
I

imported_BlacK RaiN

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

And do those figures record the difference between active played accounts and the accounts of players waiting to see if it gets better and multiple accounts? I knew a lot of friends who kept their accounts going for a good while before finally quitting.

Trammel did make a huge difference to UO, but not every player quit outright when it opened. Heck I've been hoping it wasn't a bad dream ever since, the same with Malas.

I just wouldn't rely on those charts as absolute proof of anything.

Wenchy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Wenchy...

It wasn't until Age of Shadows that my entire Feluccan community on Atlantic finally gave up...

also, wasn't UO 3rd dawn the very first expansion after Trammel was made?

Is it safe to say people started realizing shortly after Trammel was made how much of an impact it really had on the game they had fallen in love with?

I can't tell you how many RP guilds hated trammel for killing such things as dungeon crawls just to name one example.

Anyway... good stuff!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Perhaps, just perhaps, a thread that includes a frownie face and the word "Trammies" in the title is doomed to be pit of flame and recrimination?

( edit: safe travels and good hunting in "Real Life: the MMRPG" )
 

Sam the Scribe

Visitor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

Perhaps, just perhaps, a thread that includes a frownie face and the word "Trammies" in the title is doomed to be pit of flame and recrimination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, and when the OP really is just venting and poses no clear argument, and provides no constrictive solutions... then it just sets the tone for all of the following posts. I'm not sure how this evil thread was allowed to grow this large while managing to stay in this forum.

there use to be two types of uo player...

Yup... off to a good start there.

There are two types of UO player... those that complain without purpose and those that seek to improve the game through discussion.

This evil thread needs to have a stake driven through it's heart.. and it needs to be buried in a pauper's grave... with no marker or trace that it ever existed.

Safe Travels, Sam
 

Sam the Scribe

Visitor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

um ... I might have stopped after that first sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here I thought the whole... drive a steak thru its heart... buried in a pauper's grave was kinda poetic... but I did make my point in the first sentence.

Safe Travels, Sam
 
I

imported_ElRay

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

Look kids! It's SirBruce!

Holy [censored]! He said Trammel didn't kill UO! But that makes all the people who thought it did, wrong!

As wrong today as they have been for the last several freaking years.

Trammies won! yay!

[/ QUOTE ]

you won a game that is so butchered/torn up/pieced back together that in its current form, is a disgrace to its former roots.....you won a game that is being run by a skeleton crew of devs who allow exploits and hacks to run rampantly, their lack of action even encourages these things. You won a game that has its playerbase fighting constantly about facet differences and inane things. You won a game where the devs implement changes based on no testing.

grats
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top