[Feedback] Unhappy about a few things.

[StifledArgument]

1. No ability to make a certain # of items in the crafting menus.
2. That some graphics are blinking in and out.
3. Text not lining up in different resolutions. Such as Macro creation the text for Create shifts within the button (not a big deal, but still).

I think you guys put a lot of work into this, and a lot of the things I really like, but the things I don't make me a sad panda.

Edited to remove the targeting issue.

 

[Thangorodrim]

3. Turn off the legacy targeting to enable targeting features.

 

[StifledArgument]

Well, that helps with one thing. Thank you

 

[DevilsOwn]

I have the same trouble with things blinking, and I believe it's due to poor graphics card since a friend looking at the same items with better card does not experience it

system requirements listed here by Chrissay

copy/paste (and maybe be a good idea to sticky this up top, Petra?)

Currently the system requirements are:

Operating System: Windows XP or Windows Vista
CPU: Intel® Pentium™ III 1000 MHz or AMD® Athlon™ 1000 MHz
RAM: 512 MB or more
Video: 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ 3 class card or newer, ATI® Radeon™ 9700 or newer.
Exceptions: (the following cards are not supported) Geforce™ FX Series, Geforce4™ MX Series, GeForce™ PCX 5900, GeForce™ 6200 Series, Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X3000, ATI® Radeon™ X300 Series, ATI® Radeon™ X1300 LE HyperMemory-32
DirectX® 9.0c and latest video drivers
Sound: Card capable of supporting DirectX 9.0
Hard Drive: 4.0 GB available space
Internet Connection: 56k or better

The recommended specs:

Operating System: Windows XP or Windows Vista
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1800 MHz or AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1000MHz
RAM: 1024 MB or more
Video: 128 MB 3D graphics card, NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6600 class card or above , ATI® Radeon™ x1500 or above
DirectX® 9.0c and latest video drivers
Sound: Card capable of supporting DirectX 9.0
Hard Drive: 8.0 GB available space
Internet Connection: Cable or DSL Connection or better


Please Note these can change at any time since this is still in beta

 

[StifledArgument]

I have a quad processor Q6600 (2.4G), with 3.25G of Ram (4 but with no physical extension and I refuse to run Vista), running XP Professional and an ATI HD 3870. I believe I also have Direct X 10.x

Edited to add, I have a cable connection running 16megs/sec.

I don't think it is my video card or computer. I have tried this on my laptop with an uber nvidia card with not only the same result, but with it crashing my laptop near the blinking items.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

I have the same trouble with things blinking, and I believe it's due to poor graphics card since a friend looking at the same items with better card does not experience it

system requirements listed here by Chrissay

copy/paste (and maybe be a good idea to sticky this up top, Petra?)

Currently the system requirements are:

Operating System: Windows XP or Windows Vista
CPU: Intel® Pentium™ III 1000 MHz or AMD® Athlon™ 1000 MHz
RAM: 512 MB or more
Video: 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ 3 class card or newer, ATI® Radeon™ 9700 or newer.
Exceptions: (the following cards are not supported) Geforce™ FX Series, Geforce4™ MX Series, GeForce™ PCX 5900, GeForce™ 6200 Series, Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X3000, ATI® Radeon™ X300 Series, ATI® Radeon™ X1300 LE HyperMemory-32
DirectX® 9.0c and latest video drivers
Sound: Card capable of supporting DirectX 9.0
Hard Drive: 4.0 GB available space
Internet Connection: 56k or better

The recommended specs:

Operating System: Windows XP or Windows Vista
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1800 MHz or AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1000MHz
RAM: 1024 MB or more
Video: 128 MB 3D graphics card, NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6600 class card or above , ATI® Radeon™ x1500 or above
DirectX® 9.0c and latest video drivers
Sound: Card capable of supporting DirectX 9.0
Hard Drive: 8.0 GB available space
Internet Connection: Cable or DSL Connection or better


Please Note these can change at any time since this is still in beta

Deffinetly isn't a low end Graphics card making some things blink. My Fountains of Life are all blinking, nothing else yet.

Minimum reuirements are here
.
.
.
.
.
Recomended is here
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My Comp and it's GFX card are here lol.

It's deffinetly a bug or something wrong on there end. Me and Wife both experience it. She has a Nividia card, I have an ATI card so I know it isn't just one or the other of those having a problem either. Benefit of having 6 Comps I play on lol. Easy to figure out if it's a problem with my system vs. Client or Software etc.

 

[DevilsOwn]

seems you may be correct, GrayGhost.... the friend that did not have this happening last night reports that it is, indeed, happening to him today

 

[Old Man of UO]

seems you may be correct, GrayGhost.... the friend that did not have this happening last night reports that it is, indeed, happening to him today

The KR client does the same thing. Blink on! Blink off! The braziers in my house drive me nuts! OH... but they are NOT blinking in SA... it's finally fixed for me!

 

[Deb]

I have the same problem with the blinking on and off BUT it only seems
to happen in Custom houses for me. Same with the friends that were
testing it also. Do any of you find this also?

 

[Supreem]

We actually fixed a bug last week with the animated tiles blinking! It should be in the next patch.

 

[canary]

We actually fixed a bug last week with the animated tiles blinking! It should be in the next patch.

You guys should be ashamed you didn't do anything regarding updating art to get in line with the fact it is 2009, not 2001 or even 1996.

 

[Tazar]

You guys should be ashamed you didn't do anything regarding updating art to get in line with the fact it is 2009, not 2001 or even 1996.

They did... and the old-time players rebelled... so now we get recycled 2D graphics... and they still complain that 2D is just not 2D.

 

[Old Man of UO]

They did... and the old-time players rebelled... so now we get recycled 2D graphics... and they still complain that 2D is just not 2D.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL... hahahahahahaha... hehehehehe....

MAN I love my job, glad I don't have it this bad. I just have to work with local governments who want it all for free.

hehe

 

[DevilsOwn]

We actually fixed a bug last week with the animated tiles blinking! It should be in the next patch.

you, sir, have my deepest appreciation

 

[Petra Fyde]

Old art does not = bad art.
Would you re-paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because the art on it is old??
The way it was rendered may have been out of date however, which is something that can be addressed.

OP: Regarding your 'unhappy' no 1: read Draconi's posts in this thread: http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?p=1237992&highlight=menu#post1237992

 

[Wolfways]

Old art does not = bad art.
Would you re-paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because the art on it is old??QUOTE]

You can't compare the Sistine Chapel to 2D!
The old masters are appreciated because of the craftmanship and beauty of the artwork. How many players have looked at UO and said that's beautiful?

Compare UO to modern low-spec mmo's like World of Warcraft or higher-spec games like Age of Conan and i think the majority of people would say that visually they look alot better than UO.
Visual entertainment has to evolve along with technology or it gets left on the shelf.
I know i'd rather watch the latest Pixar animation than an old Mickey Mouse cartoon.

I remember being in town looking at pc games when a kid picked Samurai Empire and put it straight back on the shelf after glancing at the back and saying to his mother "That's really old."
It hadn't been out long.

Tbh i'm not surprised SA isn't going to have a shelf life.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Where to start with this one...lets see, how about there are many successful games that have never seen a store shelf, and some that only recently have after reaching an extremely high player base.

Next, how about on the back of the box it says 1997? Guess you never noticed that.....

Also, "children" these days with visual pleasure....just becuase it looks good does not mean it will be good. I won't even bother beating this horse any more as I am tired of repeating the entire debate.

And Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I will say about 95% of the player base said the legacy client was "beautiful" when they told EA that the KR artwork was horrible. Even tho the KR art work was actually very nice, character models were rendered nicely....the resolution was pretty...it was very visually pleasing, but guess what? It was not "beautiful" beauty is not pleasure, it is appriciation, and any player who has played uo long enough will tell you that they appriciate the legacy art work more than any new art work that will come out, that is not to say any of us do not like the new art work, it is just not "beautiful".

I liked the KR art work, I do not mind the SA artwork (admittingly it is slightly worse than 2d or kr, but that is a resolution issue and I can live with that) but I appriciate the 2d art work. So yea...Most of the same people you are refering to about not enjoying the old uo graphics, also would not think the Sistine Chapel was all that "Beautiful" either.

 

[Wolfways]

I'm not argueing about other games being successful or not. My point is that many people who have never heard of UO would probably pick up the box, see the graphics and put it straight back.
I must be one of these "children" who believe that my visual entertainment should be visually pleasing.
I know there is alot more to UO than the graphics but i never could stand looking at 2D and if that was the only client choice then i'd just close my account. I might never find a game that i like as much as UO (haven't yet), but i just can't get used to artwork that looks like something i drew as a child.

I don't have the box to hand right now, but what does 1997 have to do with anything?

And yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but i don't ever remember anyone saying anything in UO was beautiful...well maybe once about unicorns...
On the other hand in many other games forums people post screenshots of characters, waterfalls, distant scenery, etc. because they are visually pleasing to a majority of people playing that game...or maybe even a minority.

I personally think SA graphics look like crap, but they're still a huge improvement on 2D. Except the paperdoll. I always thought the 2D paperdoll looked best.
But imo 3D was better than any UO client so far.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

It says the year the game was made on the back of the box...the year is 1997. And UO is not visual entertainment....I suppose it "could" be but it is not. Looking at a well designed landscape, that is visual entertainment, watching cgi is visual entertainment, I had a really good one....but someone I lost it....

UO is a game, it has depth and flow and story, it almost has life (I didn't originally want to say that....as I am not that into it to say it is life....but it conveys my point better) It is not meant for visual entertainment...in fact it is a social game even.

If games were never given better graphics than the the nintendo system, "children" would not think everything has to be graphically pleasing, they would know that a games worth is based on its playability and entertainment. It is it's gameplay, characteristics, story, that sell a game, not its graphics. I find it sad, as I have said far to many times by now, that the current state of video games is "graphical pleasure" instead of it being about "good games". So many successful games that really honestly suck, they just "look good". I use the word children loosely, as while it is mostly younger generations (I am not even that old) there are obviously older people who feel the same way. But it is still mostly children, as they have grown up with the graphical edge beat into them from companies constantly emphazising good graphics and giving up good gameplay for those graphics.

It is nothing more than a psychological premise, it is social grouping and forming. It is called "conforming" we conform to what is normal, what it seen as being better or best even if it is not, even if we do not inately believe it is, but it must be because everyone says it is.

Edit: By the way, my wife constantly finds spots in UO that are "pretty" and "beautiful" and again, we are not very old, in fact I would group her with the same "children" that I have defined in this post, the people who saden me.

 

[Wolfways]

I agree with you, mostly.

We are told that newer is always better, and when it comes to games graphics i have to agree...but only better graphics, not better game.
As i've said, i haven't found anything as good as UO. My last mmo was Age of Conan and i did look at the impressive scenery and creatures and enjoyed that aspect of the game, but after only a month or so i realised there was nothing to do but level my characters...which is why i'm playing UO again.

I think the thing that annoys me about UO is that it doesn't advance with current technology. The gameplay itself is the best imo, but as i mentioned with the boy in the shop earlier most people will probably not even notice when the game was made or care. They will see the graphics and judge the game on that alone. I'm guilty of doing that myself...even after years of playing UO and knowing that good gameplay does not equal good graphics.
So while UO may not be wholly visual entertainment it is at least partly visual entertainment.

I don't see any reason that UO can't have amazing graphics along with the currently great gameplay.
Unfortunately EA have a bad reputation for not handling games well, especially from the hundreds of Warhammer players who either lagged so bad they could barely play (of which i was one) or just couldn't run the game at all even on high-end pc's, who have been all but ignored by EA.

Anyway, my point is the gameplay is already there. Adding better graphics does not (or shouldn't) take anything away from that.
Of course there are plenty of 2D players who for whatever reason will dissagree with me.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Well, actually, adding better graphics you have to take away from game play....you really can not have the best game play and the best graphics...But I guess it depends what you mean by "graphics"

I have admitted SA's flaw is its poor resolution, if it was in a higher resolution I would be one hell of a happy camper. If you mean the art work and rendering, then no its a give and take. UO requires an already huge amount of...lets say "power" to set the game the way it is currently, trying to do that with "the best graphics" is just not feasible, that is why there are no games that have done it yet. I agree EA has a horrible rep, so does UO is is the biggest downfall of the game.

Even tho EA has a bad rep, the fact remains you can not have limitless game play and "the best graphics" it is a give and take, I feel they could be "better" I have even posted on Uhall that they could be better, BUT I prefer them to concentrate on the game play of this game over wasting time on how it looks. I do not think graphics matter, and don't bother asking me rediculous questions about if I would be ok with graphics from the atari, my answer is yes, I will save you the typing time. Look at my other posts about this, while it is mostly repeating myself it is also my stand on it.

Edit: If you actually do look at the other posts...ignore my obvious meanness and aggression...it is from fighting with peopel since KR's release about this graphical issue. -.-

 

[Wolfways]

lol, okay we'll agree to dissagree on the graphics issue

I'll admit that i don't know anything about pc's ( old fart alert, 40 a few days ago ), but i know they have advanced considerably in the past 10 years while UO hasn't (not much anyway).
I thought that only changing the graphics and leaving everything else wouldn't be much of a power change. I realise there'd be some, maybe even alot, but nothing that modern pc's couldn't handle...and currently UO can be played on an old pc as so many 2D defenders are so fond of saying
But players being unwilling to keep up with technology is no excuse for not keeping the game up to date.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

lol, okay we'll agree to dissagree on the graphics issue

I'll admit that i don't know anything about pc's ( old fart alert, 40 a few days ago ), but i know they have advanced considerably in the past 10 years while UO hasn't (not much anyway).
I thought that only changing the graphics and leaving everything else wouldn't be much of a power change. I realise there'd be some, maybe even alot, but nothing that modern pc's couldn't handle...and currently UO can be played on an old pc as so many 2D defenders are so fond of saying
But players being unwilling to keep up with technology is no excuse for not keeping the game up to date.

haha, it is actually quite a task for UO to try and update the graphics. But also MANY of the players would not be able to play the game, in fact since my wifes laptop is broken she would not be able to play the game with out the legacy client (not even sa works on her computer currently)

And considering the state of the economy...and having just lost my job and looking to move to a cheaper state (from cali) I would be unable to upgrade her computer. But even with out all this, it is hard to keep UO stable and keep it performing well while adding high end graphics. I am all for the graphics, I really take a nutral stance on the matter. Graphics do not matter at all <-- this is my stance, what I have been fighting for days now. So if they upgrade them, then woohoo, more power to them. Who doesn't like a better looking game. But if they don't, then good as well as it shows they would rather keep UO's gameplay than make it visually pleasing.

If you need a good example of this, take a look at darkfall. It was suppose to be the UO killer, and suppose to have everything the old UO offered, and yet after ALOT of disappointment, they have had to remove things that make UO, UO. So short of giving up parts of the game there is little wiggle room on the graphical issue. Especially since they are trying to get rid of the 2d client so they can further upgrade the game (the server code is worse than the 2d client code....it needs major updates >.>) so...people that do not adapt hold the game back, I do not care what EA/Mythic does as long as they get rid of that client I could settle for stick figure animations till they upgraded things. (I know I am hoping for alot from a 12 year old game that is seriously dying due to EA's poor management)

 

[Wolfways]

Ah well, if better graphics means losing something from UO then screw the graphics.

....except 2D. Screw that too

 

[zeroshade]

I liked the KR crafting menu where you could make multiple items like 10 stools and mark them as quest items when you make them... I was disappointed to see the 2d crafting menu

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I liked the KR crafting menu where you could make multiple items like 10 stools and mark them as quest items when you make them... I was disappointed to see the 2d crafting menu

They are fully aware of that and have every intention of implimenting that feature, remember this is only a beta client (I know I know most of it is a finished product) But you never know what parts are not finished.

 

[zeroshade]

I know its only beta, and it wont stop me from using it... i really like the imporvements over the 2d client. and have started trying to duplicate my macros. There are certain things that are annoying such as when i arm/disarm i have to have a "delay" to equip an item. It would be nice that it just equiped as soon as it could without the "delay"