Trammies won? :(

[Guest]

...

Trammel's BIGGEST problem was that it was implemented BACKWARDS.

Instead of pushing non-con PvP into its own facet and tailoring the facet to support it, the Devs at the time forced MANY RP communities that wanted nothing to do with non-con PvP to either "live with it" or pull up stakes and try to rebuild through the Trammel Land Rush leaving behind known, built up, and in some cases blessed establishments.

Age of Shadows is a bit of give and take. What it gave in terms of improvement was the ability to completely customize your house. However, this was coupled with the item mod system which really IMO wasn't completely thought out either short or long term. The lack of staggering the intensities the same way that the original system used led to a VERY cumbersome system and the lack of forethought in terms of mod stacking and balance has led to damn near everything having a hard cap making it so that if you have a suit that uses every possible slot for a given mod that some of those item slots will have worthless (dead) mods.

 

[Surgeries]

<blockquote><hr>

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. <font color=red>Numbers kept going up long after Trammel was a reality</font color=red>. 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. <font color=red>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.</font color=red> 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

With all sincerity...

Thank You for posting this.

Many of the posters who disagreed with me, will no doubt tell you that you are dead wrong.

But it reinforces what I had stated, and since you actually track this stuff objectively, and with more accuracy than most, Thank You.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

...

Trammel's BIGGEST problem was that it was implemented BACKWARDS.

Instead of pushing non-con PvP into its own facet and tailoring the facet to support it, the Devs at the time forced MANY RP communities that wanted nothing to do with non-con PvP to either "live with it" or pull up stakes and try to rebuild through the Trammel Land Rush leaving behind known, built up, and in some cases blessed establishments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for rewording what I was saying?

...?

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

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. <font color=red>Numbers kept going up long after Trammel was a reality</font color=red>. 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. <font color=red>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.</font color=red> 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

With all sincerity...

Thank You for posting this.

Many of the posters who disagreed with me, will no doubt tell you that you are dead wrong.

But it reinforces what I had stated, and since you actually track this stuff objectively, and with more accuracy than most, Thank You.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually I disagreed with you and it reinforces exactly what I was saying.

UO Flatlined at Third Dawn... the very first expansion after trammel. Those who kept playing UO finally got fed up when Age of Shadows hit the block...

which was completely the product of trammel thinking. Item insurance? Item properties and chasing dangling carrots on a stick?

No... the votes are in, and if UO flatlined RIGHT AFTER one year after trammel was put in... how exactly is that a success if it was constantly growing before Trammel?

there, there

*pats on the back*

You are right in agreeing with me that both playstyles are valid and have a place in UO! Consider that a consolation prize!

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh i never wanted to take his charts as the holy grail. I'd like to think they are accurate, but that wasn't my intent on my post.

My intent, was to show allllll the pvp'ers who have cryed over the years who USED THAT CHART RIGHT THERE MADE BY THAT GUY UP THERE (sorry too lazy to bold it) to make claims that trammel killed UO. People would refer to his charts as a reference that Trammel killed UO. Now he himself has come here stating otherwise, the chart shows otherwise, and the pvp'ers are still crying.

This chart, Trammel, and the state of UO has been an ongoing arguement ever since Trammel came to pass. The fact of the matter is a lot of die hard peeekaaaayeerrrs are just jaded to the fact they can't go around griefing everyone all the time anymore. So sad.

I am not anti pvp. I am pro choice. The moongates make a wonderful pvp switch. Pvp can be fun. I've never ever stated otherwise. I grew up HAVING to do it, go back to Fel occasionally to do it, but I now have the choice. MMMmmmmm choice. The choice to play a game my way or to potentially play the game someone else's way if I so choooose to open myself up to that.

I truely believe this is the mindset of the pvp'ers who say trammel killed UO. They simply want to impose their playstyle on others and cry when they don't get their way.

It shows all over this thread and every other trammy bashing thread that's been posted over the yeeears.

Trammies won yay! Since the year 2000. That's a long time for fooshies not to come accept it

The one valid arguement a pvp whiner does have is content. I'd love to see factions fixed. I'd love to see castle seiges involving ballistas and crap. I'd like killing and murdering and pvp to have some sort of meaning besides listening to some Neo-lower 20's dweebie tell me he wtf'spwnted me.

Only it doesn't. And the most satisfaction you get out of pvp are pscrolls if you do them, and of course standing over someone's body spamming "haha I wtf's pwnted you".

Hooray.

There was, is and will always be way more to UO than pvp. Proof in the fact that they indeed give us trammies more content over and over again. People must like it eh?

Trammel did not kill UO. It didn't even scratch it. It HELPED it. A lot. If that chart is accurate, theres the proof. What I have seen in game over my ten years also proves it. In my eyes. To me. And anyone else willing to accept it, admit it and love it.

I wwaaaaasss ttthhhheeeeerrrrrreeeeee......on the other side. The side getting sick of getting peeekayed everytime I left my porch.

So you folks go on and enjoy your side of the fence. Maybe I'll join you from time to time. You can bet though, that most people don't want to put up with bile mouthed yack hoooo's (*cough Black Rain cough*) acting like a fool, in game or on boards.

And let me state this right here before someone else comes in and says "but trammel has yack hooo's too stiggy". Yes it does. The whole game is filled with yack hoooo's. The thing is in Trammel I don't have to put up with them attacking me every night I go out. You can ignore them.

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem. Perhaps you need to go re-read the thread?

Starting with the title

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's one of the best quotes from the fooshies I've seen in awhile.

Play the game your way (don't make me post another [censored] BK King!!one)
and be respectful to those you meet. And most importantly, have fun.

How dare you make any sense fooshie! Don't you know this is UHall!

*Corp Por*

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Well, as much as I appreciate your attempted compliment, of comparing your impression of my "style" to haiku.
Both require ... on your side/end or the net, full incontext quoting and comparisions, to achieve the full impact.

Specifically, you need to know who wrote what ... like who spoke first and who replied (which line follows another) ... to fully extract any meaning.

Just to clear things up, I'll break it out one last time.

<font color=blue>BlacK RaiN</font color=blue> [Re: Fayled Dhreams] #7640437 wrote this line FIRST

<font color=blue>but you forgot to indicate with what you disagree.</font color=blue>

And I tried once, to clarify, in My reply, to Your quoted bit, where I had disagreed with <font color=blue>you</font color=blue> ... in this bit:

Fayled Dhreams [Re:<font color=blue> BlacK RaiN</font color=blue> ] #7640481
its CLEAR in your quote of me ... that where you asked
<font color=blue>doth thou agree???</font color=blue>

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*

so ... it seems <font color=blue>You</font color=blue> are the one in need of a reveiw ...<font color=blue> (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.)</font color=blue> ...((<font color=blue>You</font color=blue> are the <font color=blue>Blue</font color=blue> bits))

NOTE: above, where you say:" <font color=blue>take all of my posts as one argument... </font color=blue>"

NOT good advice.... and or "guideline"
While all your posts, may, indeed, be seen: all argumentitive ...
You need a Central specific POINT ... to set yourself apart from the common "argumentitive" troll ...

As I advised you here:

Fayled Dhreams [Re: BlacK RaiN] #7640481
now
IF your actual position is:
"<font color=blue>My position is that this should change until Non-Consensual PvP has been given the proper amount of attention it deserves... </font color=blue>"

STICK with that ...
it is a simpler argument to present ...
more focused ...
what you want ... and how to get there ...
////////////

Get it?
Instead of: <font color=blue>take all of my posts as one argument... </font color=blue>
<font color=blue>You</font color=blue> Focus on
<font color=blue> Non-Consensual PvP could be better if/when: request#1, Fix#1, System#1 ....</font color=blue>

Instead of: <font color=blue> all of my posts are one big floundering vacuous argument... </font color=blue>
<font color=blue>"My position is that Non-Consensual PvP will benefit from:request#1, Fix#1, System#1 .... "</font color=blue>

THEN ...<font color=blue>You</font color=blue> won't need waste time debating history, charts, suppositions, assumptions, wild guesses, mis-conceptions, biasis, prejudice, social dynamics, psycho-socio-behaviorial theory, whether "they" have a clue, whether you have a clue ....

And ... whether or not my style resembles "haiku" ...

burma shave

Oh! and check the forums FAQ for how to make a linky .... {url=***.***.***]text{/url] ....its polite and prevents wide side scrolling issues ... easier to follow/read for everyone

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

THEN ...You won't need waste time debating history, charts, suppositions, assumptions, wild guesses, mis-conceptions, biasis, prejudice, social dynamics, psycho-socio-behaviorial theory, whether "they" have a clue, whether you have a clue ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think most people can do that Fayled

Not everyone is Vulcan

See ya next year in the next Trammie/Fooshie thread

 

[HD2300]

Look at Siege. Its the only English fee paying 100% non-consentual PvP UO shard. It just shows that there isnt much of a market for a fee paying 100% non-consentual PvP shard UO, because only 10 people play Siege.

btw subscriptions are low now not because of Trammel, but because of a consistent lack of content.

 

[Guest]

...

Not quite.

UO's growth leveled due to the problems the 3d client had (which were many in the beginning, not the least of which was it NOT being what people expected it to be), which had nothing to do with Trammel.

UO's numbers started shrinking due to the backpedaling non-expansion "we have to honor our contract with Todd McFarlane and get rid of our excess Borgthorn dolls somehow" UO:LBR. A lack of truly new lands, and a shoehorn of mass proportions did it in for that expansion.

AOS caused growth to SURGE for a time due to the changes in housing (Malas for placement, customized housing, tweaked placement rules) in the timeframe after 9/11 when they removed decay due to soldiers who played going overseas. Before AOS, housing was stifled horribly.

The dropoff for AOS happened after the housing rush due to, I agree, the item mod system not being as polished as it should have been. But again, that has nothing to do with Trammel itself either.

Like it or not, Trammel did a LOT to keep UO going. Between the release of EQ and UO:R, the growth rate for UO was slowing CONSIDERABLY. Only after the announcement of UO:R and the Faction system for PvPers did the subs begin to climb again.

Face facts. If non-con PvP were the ultimate in MMOG gaming, wouldn't UO have stayed WAY ahead of EQ? Wouldn't Shadowbane done much better? Wouldn't Darkfall actually be released by now? Wouldn't WoW NOT be a pure consent only game?

While there is a legitimate place for PvP in a game (and a good MMOG would be dumb NOT to consider it), non-con PvP is a failure of a concept. It failed because it exposed the naivety of the devs at the time (who admit this very thing) and the lack of control on the part of the players to keep the game fun for all involved (a player not having fun = a player no longer paying for a game = lost revenue = time to rethink financial/game strategy).

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

If non-con PvP were the ultimate in MMOG gaming, wouldn't UO have stayed WAY ahead of EQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never made the claim it was... here's the claim I made.

The success of a game is how well the developers keep with the design of the game whether it be con or non-con pvp oriented. I've been saying this WHOLE thread, that being either one does not determine the success of any game, period.

Ultima Online was created with the notion that a players in game behavior would express the 8 virtues and anti-virtues of the Ultima franchise. From the notoriety system to character classes, this game was designed to perform and run a certain way. A way that made sense and a way that was successful, even if it did not cater to every audience.

The philosophies of Trammel did not mesh with the original design, leaving so many players who filled much needed roles in the world... obsolete in their playing style.

It completely screwed with its own community... and it's why there is a general consensus across the board that this indeed, was a huge mistake.

It's also why, the second mistake that has been repeatedly made was the one where the Developers (or whoever calls the shots) were/are constantly try to meld the designs and philosophies of other games into this one without taking heed to how they will impact the rest of the current working systems. It's the main reason why almost all of the additions that have been aimed at mimicking features in other games, have been epic failures in this one.

Rather than expanding upon, and enhancing the working systems within this game, the revolving door that has been our dev team have done nothing but repeatedly tore apart only to rebuild the system over and over again in an attempt to get it "right." What has been failed to be realized... is that they did not get it wrong the first time around.

Both playstyles have a place... no doubt but, the focus of this game has been misdirected for far too long now. A grass-roots movement maybe the only thing left that could bring coherence back to this wonderful game. Not to mention a large portion of a fan-base who otherwise, would still be loyal.

<blockquote><hr>

Wouldn't Shadowbane done much better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad example

It did wonderfully but this is an instance of too little too late. Poor management and faulty principles ruined this game... (UO actually almost went this path as well... fortunately, the dev team had enough for-sight to implement such things as stat-loss and a notoriety system to judge behavior... in SB, no behavior is bad... it's simply successful or not. Not something people want to succumb themselves to... as morality needs a reason to oppose what is perceived as immoral... in Ultima Online, we define those by the virtues. The major difference between this fantasy world and RL... we "make-believe" our morality with the virtues representing our "ten... er.. eight commandments.")

<blockquote><hr>

Wouldn't Darkfall actually be released by now?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can do you correlate that? Age of Conan is currently in Beta... Dark Age of Camelot was a huge success... and WAR, is being heavily worked on.

None of these examples are of games that are of a Consensual PvP orientation.

<blockquote><hr>

Wouldn't WoW NOT be a pure consent only game?

[/ QUOTE ]

WoW does awesome because they built the game upon a specific design and have done nothing but expanded upon that design enhancing and highlighting the game.

The same can be said for EQ's success... what however, everyone has failed to pick up on... are my constant references to Star Wars Galaxies... which is an epic fail, because the developers flip flopped constantly tinkering with its original design.

The success of a videogame has to do with how well it is enhanced and how well its current systems are expanded upon (which are the reasons why people play the game and don't cancel their subscriptions in a really short amount of time.)

I hold the position that Ultima Online needs to have more of its essence injected into it... and its systems balanced, fixed in a coherent manner and expanded upon... not constantly replaced, reworked and rehashed so we are playing the same merry-go-round we were 10 years ago.

Non-Consensual Player vs Player conflict has a BIG place in this game as it was designed with that in mind. Enhancement of this system so that it is working properly is key to the success of this game imho.

And no where in my argument do I claim that Consensual Player vs Player conflict have just as big of a place in Ultima... after all, even when there was no trammel, we still chose to duel one another... consensually, A by-product of it's design.

 

[Sneaky Que]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

With all sincerity...

Thank You for posting this.

Many of the posters who disagreed with me, will no doubt tell you that you are dead wrong.

But it reinforces what I had stated, and since you actually track this stuff objectively, and with more accuracy than most, Thank You.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would also like to thanks Sir Bruce, because his records also prove that UO had a healthy population before Trammel (much healthier than it is now), and that it wasn't necessary. Since that is what I have been arguing...

 

[Sneaky Que]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem. Perhaps you need to go re-read the thread?

Starting with the title

[/ QUOTE ]

The title of the thread is "Trammies Won?

" that is a simple question, I see no 'bashing' in that... there is a tone of sadness yes, but no bashing.

 

[Guest]

...

UO's population was healthy because it was the only game in town. The ONLY way this would have been maintained was for NOONE else, specifically no other games that allowed for the choice to NOT be involved in PvP to enter the market.

That didn't happen and the first one that DID enter the market made it a point to play up the PvP switch aspect which allowed an inferior game-concept to VERY QUICKLY overtake UO in subscriptions and soar WELL beyond UO's numbers for YEARS after due to the disaffected people who left UO during the timeframe between said game's release and the release of UO:R.

Only after the announcement of UO:R did slope for UO regain the level it was achieving prior to the release of UO's first competitor.

(Note that the effect of UO:R includes both the addition of Trammel as a non-PvP land, new housing, and the Faction System)

To ignore the performance of games like EQ and WoW and how they are structured in regards to PvP and in comparison to UO is to be in error with the data provided.

 

[Sneaky Que]

Not ignoring that at all, just saying that no matter what spin you try and put on it, UO was a popular healthy game without Trammel, competition or not.

Bruce's charts prove this, free shards prove this, SP/Mug prove this and the vast amount of people who love/loved UO prove this.

It is also highly likely that the free shard population is much higher than the paying population (considering the most popular free shard has 100k active accounts on one shard alone, which is about the same as the whole EA population ATM). Considering that felucia ruleset free shards are very popular, and Trammel ruleset shards arn't as popular, I think this speaks volumes about what the entire UO player base thinks.

Yes thats right, going off data provided by Sir Bruce and the free shard's own ranking system, and subscription numbers provided by them UO's paying subscriber base is the minority of actual UO players.

Sad, I know

 

[imported_Skrag]

RTLFC

A few selected quotes from former UO developer Calandryll, made here and here. Note that these comments were made in 2005, at which point Cal no longer worked for EA and had no axe to grind. This is the same forum from which I posted a few Mark Jacobs quotes a few months ago. So yes, it's really Calandryll.

<blockquote><hr>

The thing PKs need to understand is that their playstyle was driving people out of the game - in droves. It was also the source of a LOT of really, really bad PR.

[/ QUOTE ]<blockquote><hr>

You're confusing the two issues. I prefer the more open ended gameplay. But I am also willing to see that most people don't and that Trammel's style of gameplay was more successful than pre UO:R would have been. So to be even more clear:
-I liked pre-UO:R UO.
-Post UO:R UO was more successful.
I think I can stop posting now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Yes thats right, going off data provided by Sir Bruce and the free shard's own ranking system, and subscription numbers provided by them UO's paying subscriber base is the minority of actual UO players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't make him hold his breath people. He'll do it.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

no ...
sorry ... but no
Bruce's charts prove this ..
just plain no
Bruce charts do not and CAN NOT show:
the "churn" that was on going during the growth part of the curve
the churn that was increasingly becoming worse
the churn that WAS the cause of the creation of tram

tram was created in response to the churn
the churn was the bad kind of churn that NEEDED to be addressed
RG mentioned it in an interveiw
Raph mentioned it in an interveiw and/or on his website diary/blog
"Someone" mentioned that they had seen the numbers ... and mentioned it here on the forums

ALL that bruces numbers show and represent are data points ... with lines drawn between them ..
that is it
that is all

without churn
THEN your argument makes sense ...
without churn
THEN you might be right: "no reason to create tram"

sorry
there WAS churn
That you didn't know about it, that you didn't allow for it
Even if you don't know what it is ...

It still existed
it is not "shown" on the graph

Just a little detail ... yeah
In theory and wants and dreams ... a man could flap his arms and fly
except for that little invisible detail gravity .... yeah maybe
In theory you little proof would be true
except for that little invisible detail

churn.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

.... i think all the patches, and changes for a long time now have been based around the crowd of trammies?, or malasites?, or Tokunians?, i dont know what to call them now that they have all those new lands to adventure.... can we please have some attention in Fel!!!..
.......

[/ QUOTE ]

No love for Felucca?
What does Felucca have that Trammel does not?

1) Champ spawns
2) Power scrolls
3) Double resources
4) Double fame
5) (Past) Higher spawn rate in dungeons.
6) The ability to kill anyone who is really pissing you off

7) No more Stat loss.
8) Red’s can again go in town.
9) Virtue dungeon arties have double the spawn rate
10) Book of truth (past event) had double the drop rate
11) The same Champ dungeons as Trammel, except for two. (Ish and Malas locations) with double resources and double the chances of drops.

And no one really believes that anyone has all 7 of their characters:
1) With so many murder counts they cannot ever go blue.
2) With so many power and stat scrolls applied to all seven characters they cannot delete one and start a blue.

So everything in Trammel is available to anyone in Felucca.
1) Doom
2) Monitor dungeon and the Ish dungeon
3) Doom arties – fast dropping in price.
4) Paragons – who drop nearly useless loot now.

I have no idea how you managed to think that there is no love for Felucca, from where I stand, Felucca has all of the perks.

Yea, Felucca gets no love…..

 

[Sneaky Que]

<blockquote><hr>

RTLFC

A few selected quotes from former UO developer Calandryll, made here and here. Note that these comments were made in 2005, at which point Cal no longer worked for EA and had no axe to grind. This is the same forum from which I posted a few Mark Jacobs quotes a few months ago. So yes, it's really Calandryll.

<blockquote><hr>

The thing PKs need to understand is that their playstyle was driving people out of the game - in droves. It was also the source of a LOT of really, really bad PR.

[/ QUOTE ]<blockquote><hr>

You're confusing the two issues. I prefer the more open ended gameplay. But I am also willing to see that most people don't and that Trammel's style of gameplay was more successful than pre UO:R would have been. So to be even more clear:
-I liked pre-UO:R UO.
-Post UO:R UO was more successful.
I think I can stop posting now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Owned.

[/ QUOTE ]

<blockquote><hr>


Warning!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
Please login below or register an account with f13.net.
http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2146.msg180937#msg180937


[/ QUOTE ]

Bad links.

..but of course we should take the word of one Dev, because we all know that they are ALWAYS right when it comes to knowing what the player base wants/is best for the game. /sarcasm

 

[Sneaky Que]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

.... i think all the patches, and changes for a long time now have been based around the crowd of trammies?, or malasites?, or Tokunians?, i dont know what to call them now that they have all those new lands to adventure.... can we please have some attention in Fel!!!..
.......

[/ QUOTE ]

No love for Felucca?
What does Felucca have that Trammel does not?

1) Champ spawns
2) Power scrolls
3) Double resources
4) Double fame
5) (Past) Higher spawn rate in dungeons.
6) The ability to kill anyone who is really pissing you off

7) No more Stat loss.
8) Red’s can again go in town.
9) Virtue dungeon arties have double the spawn rate
10) Book of truth (past event) had double the drop rate
11) The same Champ dungeons as Trammel, except for two. (Ish and Malas locations) with double resources and double the chances of drops.

And no one really believes that anyone has all 7 of their characters:
1) With so many murder counts they cannot ever go blue.
2) With so many power and stat scrolls applied to all seven characters they cannot delete one and start a blue.

So everything in Trammel is available to anyone in Felucca.
1) Doom
2) Monitor dungeon and the Ish dungeon
3) Doom arties – fast dropping in price.
4) Paragons – who drop nearly useless loot now.

I have no idea how you managed to think that there is no love for Felucca, from where I stand, Felucca has all of the perks.

Yea, Felucca gets no love…..

[/ QUOTE ]

Name the last bit of exclusive content Fel got that was anything more than a tweak to what we already have. An event, a new game play addition, anything new. I honestly can't think of it. Trammel on the other hand just recently had a Scavenger hunt event. Can you imagine how fun a scavenger hunt in fel would be if they did it right?

Don't get me wrong, I know things content wise have been slow for ALL of us recently (since ML really), but that seems to be changing now, so is it not fair that Fel gets some love too?

All I want to see is BOTH communities (Fel and Tram) get the content they deserve. I don't dislike/hate/whatever Trammel, I think they could of done a MUCH better job at it, and that is wasn't necessary to the games survival (which I have proven, like it or not).

As I posted before (everyone seems to miss) I realize (and most who share my opinions do too) that the Tram Fel split is here to stay. It is now our job to make the best of what we have, because despise all it's many setbacks, UO is still the greatest game there is, if you ask me.

It is my hope that one day the paying UO subscriber base will once again have more players than the 'free' player base, and that we can get some of those people who loved UO so much back, no matter what 'version' of UO they enjoy playing. I'm sure that with the right attention given to all play styles, it should not be that hard to do.

Did I mention I like KR?

*ducks* So much for the thought of me wanting to revert the game! LOL

 

[imported_Skrag]

<blockquote><hr>

Bad links.

[/ QUOTE ]
My bad. You'd have to register.

<blockquote><hr>

..but of course we should take the word of one Dev, because we all know that they are ALWAYS right when it comes to knowing what the player base wants/is best for the game. /sarcasm

[/ QUOTE ]
The developer in question actually liked the old pre-Tram game better. The difference between him and you is that he can acknowledge reality. I mean you're the f**king ****** who pointed to Fury. Games where the development team all gets fired and the game is forced to go to free-play aren't exactly a great example of anything.

 

[Sneaky Que]

Yeh but then I showed the examples of free shards and SP, which really can't be denied.

 

[Guest]

Well I base my thoughts about Tram on the rough percentage of players I knew who quit, when and why. A lot of my friends played both sides of the fence as it were in RP and PvP. Some of us toughed it out, or kept coming back to see if there were improvements. Then, mostly they quit.

Trammel for me was the start of the problem and it did lose a chunk of players. Whether their accounts remained active or they just checked in every few months isn't really important. My guilds dropped off in chunks, as did the RP and PvP guilds we knew. Malas IMO was almost as harmful with the damage it did to PvP. Casual PvP became rather expensive and stupid. My guildmates tried keeping up and managed, but the PvP was so stupid they quit a bit down the road. Only now does there seem to be a point in trying PvP again.

But the thing is, you probably had similar friends who also made a good transition to Tram. Players often hang with similar playstyle buddies, so I can fully understand that you found it great and more of your friends remained in game.

In my circle of buddies, we had serious issues with problems the tram ruleset created for RP. Healing oranges, vetting your pets, pushthrough in RP PvP, going armed with GM swords to be thwacked with a vanq axe because your enemy was tram based and thus whipped out the good stuff. You couldn't res the oranges after either lol. In a warred guild or factions meant you couldn't be res'd in Tram unless your guildmate did it. I lost vastly more suits of armour because of that than to any PKing

The list of irritations went on and on

When you didn't feel you needed safety from PKs, visiting tram was just a list of problems and neon. That's how we felt about it. Fel was emptied, we hated Tram and virtually nobody wanted to leave the safety of Tram. Now because new players start in Tram, they base their fear of fel on 2nd and 3rd hand stories of someone who was PKd 4 years ago and refuse a visit. When outside of PvP hotspots Fel is safer than tram

Sorry, that was a muuuuuuch longer post than intended lol.

Wenchy

 

[Guest]

Here is something for those of you who enjoy pvm, and consider pvm to be more challenging, or dont like fel because of pvp. In tram, your monsters attack you when you come in sight, they dont ask for your permission, and they only did it because you stepped into their dungeon, think of fel as a dungeon, if you see a red, he might attack you like a monster would, and just like a monster, if you have the balls, you can attack him, defend yourself, or whatever.... but one thing about reds is taht they have a speed comparable to your own, and they dont have a chart somewhere that tells you what their armor class is, or the best way to defeat them......

maybe this is just the way i see it, but those who say they only want consentual pvp seem like they are the type to never get out and experience life, if life were predictable, or you could know exactly what each day holds, what would there be to make it fun.... all pvp does is adds a little of the un-predictable into your life.

I challenge anyone of you who dont like pvp, or say non-consentual pvp is bad, tell me what in your world cannot be made easier by looking on a website like stratics or many others and finding their weekpoints, or even seeing where to find them, and not have to worry about them finding you... sure the most resources can be farmed in fel, or you can only get powerscrolls in fel, but this is without a doubt the most vivid land uo has yet to build, and the people make it up.....

you say that all reds and murderers are cold, or they just rezkill you over and over... have you ever tried to get to know any of these guilds or what holds them together.... they attack you who are unprepared.

you know what people like you, well, i cant say like you because you have yet to gain the courage for this one, but in the origional days of uo, there were murderers, and thiefs and all. but those that didnt like it, got together a group of their friends put on some armor, and fought..

stop coming here and saying that we should all just dissapear, that is why fel is ours, and that is the same reason that it will continue to be ours..... you all are cowards who cannot do anything about your problems but gripe.....

the challenge is for you to get a guild together, and take back this land, if you can.....

 

[Babble]

Felucca is all your, don't have a problem with that.
Have fun

 

[Connor_Graham]

"if you have the balls"

"those who say they only want consentual pvp seem like they are the type to never get out and experience life"

"you have yet to gain the courage"

"you all are cowards"


Did you ever stop to think that those that enjoy the PvM side of the moongate DON'T WANT to experience dealing with people that would spout off any of the above and worse, but play UO for RELAXATION and FUN?

Guess not.


"maybe this is just the way i see it"

This I can say, is a 100% factual statement.

The way YOU see it, is not the way I see it, and is not the way JOE SCHMOE sees it, but ONLY the way YOU see it.


Just because YOU happen to think PvP is the ONLY good way to play UO, does not mean everyone else should agree with you, or will.

There's room for everyone in UO, but EVERYONE needs to be consicious of the fact that NOT EVERYONE plays it for the same reasons, or in the same way, and NOT act high and mighty because they happen to think their way is the best.

 

[Sam the Scribe]

<blockquote><hr>

.....you all are cowards who cannot do anything about your problems but gripe.....

the challenge is for you to get a guild together, and take back this land, if you can.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont realize how funny that is... the same circular argument... you insult people that dont embrace your playstyle, then try to turn them into PvP clones in order for you to accept them. I dont need your acceptance.

It's the same "insult then challenge" mentality that many of us are tired of. You are actually re-inforcing the fel "playground bully" stereotype.

Safe Travels, Sam

 

[Guest]

try reading it as a whole, and see what i really had to say there, dont pick and choose one or two words to make comments about

 

[Guest]

that last post was meant for you connor....

 

[Connor_Graham]

<blockquote><hr>

try reading it as a whole, and see what i really had to say there, dont pick and choose one or two words to make comments about

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read the whole thing. The points I quoted are the ones that were pertinant to my response, and are pretty much indicative of the rest of the post, which is exactly what Sam had to say also.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

.....you all are cowards who cannot do anything about your problems but gripe.....

the challenge is for you to get a guild together, and take back this land, if you can.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont realize how funny that is... the same circular argument... <font color="red"> you insult people that dont embrace your playstyle </font> , then try to turn them into PvP clones in order for you to accept them. I dont need your acceptance.

It's the same "insult then challenge" mentality that many of us are tired of. You are actually re-inforcing <font color="red"> the fel "playground bully" stereotype </font> .

Safe Travels, Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

is this not what you just said was my problem?

 

[Sam the Scribe]

<blockquote><hr>

try reading it as a whole, and see what i really had to say there, dont pick and choose one or two words to make comments about

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your whole post... you wrote it... so I can quote any part of it that I like. I dont need to quote the entire thing to offer a rebuttal.

Oh wait... I forgot... everyone is supposed to play by your rules.

Maybe you should use the preview function and clean up the mess before your put your thoughts out in public for others to see.

 

[Guest]

i guess what you among others here arent seeing is that you are playing OUR game, uo was build with what we love in mind, not just pvp, but pvp was one of the MAIN ideas behind the game, thus the virtue system, in order to have a virtue system, one has to uphold the virtues against those that would not....

you are stating that you would not have a part in a game like ours, but ours is the game that was thought up 10 years ago when this Ultima Online was released. it is sad that there are those who will not, cannot, or do not know the full game.

 

[Guest]

just like in your style as you represent it of gameplay, you pick and choose what is good and bad, i will offer you the same response.

 

[Connor_Graham]

"i guess what you among others here arent seeing is that you are playing OUR game"

Last time I checked I was paying the montly fees to play UO out of MY checking account, and it wasn't YOU that owned it, but EA/Mythic.

It is OUR game, not YOURS, and NOT solely belonging to any player or playstyle.

There's a very good reason YOUR UO doesn't exist, and if you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with EA/Mythic, and stop blaming other players that simply don't happen to enjoy the same part of the game that you do.

We all play it for the same reason, to have fun, just not in the same way. That's what YOU need to understand.

 

[Sergul'zan_SP]

<blockquote><hr>


UO Flatlined at Third Dawn... the very first expansion after trammel. Those who kept playing UO finally got fed up when Age of Shadows hit the block...


[/ QUOTE ]

If trammel were the problem Siege Perilous would be thriving. It is not. It has a small player base with a very good community.

The problem is the crappy item system they implemented with Age of Shadows. It's way too complicated, requires PvPers to PvM and PvMers to PvP. It pretty much blew crafters in to oblivion.

I play on SP because it doesn't have a trammel. Those who want to play without the item based garbage have no option. They are the ones who are quitting in droves.

Trammel did break a lot of things (community, player economy, player justice, etc..), but it did not destroy UO. The lead designers for Age of Shadows did that.

 

[Guest]

summed up, that is my problem also, thank you.

and siege would be thriving with just fel if the base system of pvp werent tampered with on publish 16

 

[Stigmatas]

Reason #1 that free shards are more popular.

Because they are free.

You cannot compare playstyles and all this other crap to freeshards.

They are FREE and will immediately be more popular.

Because they are free.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

summed up, that is my problem also, thank you.

and siege would be thriving with just fel if the base system of pvp werent tampered with on publish 16

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I think there is a bandwagon you havn't jumped on over there *points*

Your a funny guy/gal.

 

[imported_mr.blackmage]

I don't know why you think this. Most people that play PRE-AOS free shards, are doing it because they want to play the game they like.

 

[Stigmatas]

Agreed.

There were many problems, and in typical EA fashion, they come up with a great idea and hose the implementation.

I am one of the folks who beleive that Felucca should have been the "new land". And what is now Fel should have been Trammel. That way player run cities and all the old nostalgic [censored] would be used and seen by all (err most).

I've also thought that maybe they needed to segregate shards, like WoW....some for PVE and some for PVP. But I'm not sure I believe in this anymore. I like going to a moongate and having the choice or not to go play around with peeekays

On my home shard.

I tell ya, half the problems you said you guys were having (healing and ressing and push thru) still give me problems in Fel TODAY! LOL It's probably because I'm a trammy mostly, but yea it feels like a different game at times in a different Facet.

One HUGE glaring problem that I totally agree with is the item based PvP. After AoS, every pvp'er that wanted to continue to compete needed to PVM and do the "grind". Only until recently have high end items become more commonplace so that people who put in a decent effort, can now compete in the pvp arena.

That was one big thing that's kept me out of that facet for awhile now. But then again, we have all the threads where people whine about items becoming more common in an item based game. Go figure

I'd say that's not a valid arguement anymore. Now Fel needs FUN content to bring more people to it. NOTHING that is needed (esp PVM wise...would piss off the majority of players) but just something FUN to do. There have been all kinds of good (and bad bad) ideas over the years.

I just don't think the demand is there though sadly

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

It's the same "insult then challenge" mentality that many of us are tired of. You are actually re-inforcing the fel "playground bully" stereotype.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they'll do it over and over and over again. Until they get all shards reverted!

Aren't you glad mindsets like this are not in charge? I am!

 

[Stigmatas]

<blockquote><hr>

guess what you among others here arent seeing is that you are playing OUR game,

[/ QUOTE ]



ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

Make your time.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

...

UO's population was healthy because it was the only game in town. The ONLY way this would have been maintained was for NOONE else, specifically no other games that allowed for the choice to NOT be involved in PvP to enter the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing to support this claim and as such... it makes the rest of your post utter trash... since it was the topic sentence and all.

 

[imported_BlacK RaiN]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

It's the same "insult then challenge" mentality that many of us are tired of. You are actually re-inforcing the fel "playground bully" stereotype.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they'll do it over and over and over again. Until they get all shards reverted!

Aren't you glad mindsets like this are not in charge? I am!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 1 person expressing himself represents everyone.

Stereotypes are bad... I don't care what kind it is.

 

[Guest]

...

Except the fact that the chart itself supports the assertion as well as the statements by the Devs at the time (one of which has been posted, but we've gone over them endlessly).

The point in the chart that EQ begins is also the same time that the growth rate in UO begins to flatten out CONSIDERABLY. That flatness stays that way UNTIL the release of Trammel (remember that the "expansion" was released online a while before the boxes were released in stores).

Or do you want to try and make the case that EQ DIDN'T eclipse UO's numbers and that one of its main selling points was the PvP switch?

UO's pre-Trammel numbers VERY MUCH were the effect of being the first of a brand new genre (there were other online games, but nothing near the user level of UO in the number of people in the same world at the same time for a monthly subscription fee).

So what MMOG PRIOR to EQ was UO in direct competition with?

 

[Guest]

So what MMOG PRIOR to EQ was UO in direct competition with?


there were a few, if my memory is working day!

runescape, meridian 59, something about atlantis. thought there were like one/two more, but they have slipped from my mind at this time.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

<blockquote><hr>

So what MMOG PRIOR to EQ was UO in direct competition with?


there were a few, if my memory is working day!

runescape, meridian 59, something about atlantis. thought there were like one/two more, but they have slipped from my mind at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wikipedia has the accepted history / impact / prioritization
(Would be interesting to see competeing published veiws ... link em up! ...

)
(excerpt ... links active at wiki for cross referencing .. FD)

When NSFNET restrictions were lifted in 1995, the Internet was opened up to developers, which allowed for the first really "massive" titles. The first success after this point was Meridian 59, which also featured first-person 3D graphics,[12] although The Realm Online appeared nearly simultaneously and may be credited with bringing the genre to a wider player-base.[11] Ultima Online, released in 1997, may be credited with first popularizing the genre,[11] though Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds was primarily responsible for mainstream attention throughout Asia which was released in 1996, about a year earlier than Ultima Online. It was EverQuest that brought MMORPGs to the mainstream in the West.[11]

Question WAS: Direct competition ... yes?