How to Ruin an MMORPG by Origin Systems Inc., Co-authored by EA [Archive]

Extra Value Meal

07-20-2008, 08:26 AM

After reading various threads about the topic and being frustrated by some of the hollow answers, I decided to write this "book" to portray my opinions on the whole "What ruined UO" debate.

Some bits I wrote myself while others I wrote awhile ago for my column. Link (http://www.411mania.com/games/columns/79876)

Chapter 1 - A Unique Experience

When risk and consequence was actually common in online games, Ultima Online stood above the rest for delivering an engrossing and open-ended online experience rife with danger. UO was and still is one of the rare breeds of MMOs considered to be sandboxes. In sandbox MMOs, unlike their more linear brethren, players can do whatever they want to whomever and wherever. You can place houses, run a tavern or other place of business, hunt, mine, fish, treasure hunt, kill other players or steal from them. Grind was minimal as there were no levels to achieve, but only skills to gain. The skill system was also open ended and a player could be whatever they wanted. A lockpicking thief, a jack-of-all-trades craftsman, a bard tamer or a tank mage, all options were available and hybridization was encouraged.

UO was a game that offered true consequences for your actions. If you were killed, your belongings could be taken by other players and you had the choice of either fighting back to reclaim your possessions or head back to town to restock. Thieves skulked around town peaking into people's backpacks to steal their hard-earned goods and murderers roamed the countryside looking for players to kill and loot. Nothing was safe and because of this, bustling communities developed to help protect the innocents and combat those who would do harm to their fellow players. The only other commercial MMO to offer similar gameplay is EVE: Online and it is an extremely successful game.

Chapter 2 - The Golden Age

At its peak, UO boasted around 100K subscribers. Even though this number pales in comparison to WoW and Lineage 2, where WoW has more than nine million and Lineage 2 over 14 million, it was an accomplishment during the infancy of MMOs. While arguments still rage about what caused UO's descent into oblivion, I can honestly say, as a UO member for eight years, it was a combination of events ranging from extremely poor decision making, loud-mouthed individuals demanding more items over bugfixes and just simple excuses. Sadly UO's golden age was extremely brief as game developers began to cater to players who wanted little to no risk or consequence, zero need to interact with their fellow players and items, items, items. These players no longer wanted to risk anything and the community degenerated into a gimmie-gimme mob with an insatiable appetite for items.

Chapter 3 - The Further Rise of the Game, but at the Cost of Its Community

After years of flooded complaints about being incessantly killed, stolen from or griefed, developers finally realized what had to be done, but instead of thinking things through and coming up with a solution that would benefit all players, they released the poorly-implemented Renaissance expansion in 2000. Instead of making a new land mass for players looking to escape from PKs and thieves, the developers in all their wisdom duplicated the entire game and inevitably split the playerbase in half. Trammel offered complete sanctuary from ruffians while Felucca was old UO with all the trimmings. In Trammel, there was no longer the need for players to protect each other and no longer a purpose for Guilds to form to combat PKs. Since Trammel had the safety, people concerned themselves more with controlling monster spawns over anything else while begging and pleading to reduce the risk of being scammed, griefed or looted.

Do I think Trammel was a good thing for this game? Although the expansion was very poorly implemented, I feel UO bettered in terms of gameplay and content, but in regards to its communities it was a step backwards. Trammel’s implementation reminds me of how EVE: Online currently handles its player killing systems. If you’re not familiar with EVE: Online, let me explain the similarities for you. You have the relative safety areas called High-sec where you can be killed, but your attacker gets destroyed by Concord, similar to UO’s Guards. Players in High-sec, dubbed Carebears by their pirate and pvp brethren, are a little more individualistic and are content with being left alone while they perform missions, mine or manufacture. While Trammel did not have PKing, you still ran the risk of being looted and griefed by your fellow player. And then you have the completely unsafe areas dubbed Lowsec and 0.0 where killing and pirating was encouraged. Here, the similarities to Felucca are apparent.

Admittedly, this particular expansion allowed UO to see its highest subscription numbers and gave its players the opportunity to avoid frustration. I’ll admit, I really did enjoy the ability to monster bash with my fellow players and then hit Felucca if I felt the urge for a little pvping. Due to the newfound safety of Trammel though, it helped pave the way for future players looking to abolish even more risk in the game turning UO into a Lite-singleplayer game. And then we move towards the worse hit of them all.

Chapter 4 - The Age of Shadows: All Risk Goes Out the Window

If you want the true killer of UO, you need not look any further than Age of Shadows. Dubbed the Age of Sh#t by the majority of its playerbase, this "expansion" was the final nail in the coffin for UO as all risk was completely and utterly removed. With this expansion came new and overpowering skills and weapons, on top of that the item system received a complete revamp. The transformation from a skill-based MMO into an item-based and item-whoring game was achieved. There were no longer set item properties and everything turned into numbers, percentages and resistances. Instead of having an Accurate Broadsword of Power, a somewhat powerful item at the time, you had this garbage:

http://www.411mania.com/game_article_pictures/4574.jpg
I didn't know I needed a math degree to loadout my character.

With the introduction of AOS, many overpowering yet easy to acquire arms and armors were introduced. These items, coupled with new overpowering skills allowed players to solo most high-end monsters indefinitely. This allowed players the freedom to not worry about forming a hunting party to fight and farm relatively tough monsters and bosses themselves.

With every item being practically unique in its own way, making them near-impossible to get again if you lose them, the system of looting other people's stuff would obviously no longer have a place in this game. The answer came in the form of a system called Insurance. For a small sum of gold, you could insure your items so they could never be looted or stolen ever again. Considering that it went against the grain of everything Ultima and most importantly challenge, it was the dumbest addition in history.

Not only did it single-handedly destroy the Thieving profession it has allowed godly players to remain godly players. It has required many to piece together multi-million gold suits in order to compete and in many ways it has helped the individual player but in the same respect it has damaged the community as well. There is no longer a need to purchase weapons and armor from crafters when you don't have a chance of losing a specific item altogether. Items are not leaving the system because of Insurance. When I pieced together my 1400 luck suit on my tamer, I knew it was the set I’d be using for years to come. This isn’t right. Due to these reasons, UO's community has all but shattered because players no longer have to help each other to get by.

The funny thing is lead developers at the time came out and admitted they were heavily influenced by Diablo 2 and WoW when it was in development. So instead of coming up with something original, the developers decided to copy off existing games. Subscription numbers plummeted after this and UO has never been able to fully recover since.

Chapter 5 - Inaction

Currently UO is plagued with cheaters and scripters who are crippling the ingame economy while forcing many players to quit the game, but developers have done next to nothing to solve the issue. Scripting has affected the community in many different ways, it has completely made the honest resource gatherer obsolete. It has put many legit player ran vendors out of business since Scripters can control the market on select products. Finally, it has jaded the community so much so that everybody thinks everyone else is scripting or cheating. And perhaps these accusations are quite true. Suggestions to help fix the myriad of other problems have otherwise been ignored and most players believe they are just being milked for all their worth while EA shifts its attention to Warhammer Online, which is currently going through its own problems at the moment.

One sure sign of this came when UO reached its 10-year anniversary. A stunning achievement for any game especially MMOs, but all players got in return for their commitment was a stupid gift rehash. That's some dedication for ya.

Chapter 6 - The Great Game that Could Have Been

Ultima Online could have stayed as one of the most unique MMOs on the market if a vocal minority and a dev team prone to mistakes hadn't shifted the game in a different direction. UO once offered a truly unique experience, but tried too hard to please the masses and be like all the rest. What we're left with is a hollow husk of a game that is best left ignored to die. It really pains me to say it as UO was a big part of my life for a long time, but it's just not the same game it once was. Any remnants of Old UO have all been lost to the sands of time. What a shame.

FarukAlazar

07-20-2008, 09:21 AM

Ibtm/l

Uriah Heep

07-20-2008, 09:22 AM

Wow.

Nice write-up, and totally on the mark.

What was, was great and fantastic. What is, is okay...nothing more, nothing less.

Well said!

Uriah Heep

07-20-2008, 09:31 AM

Ibtm/l

Why the IBTM??

It's well written, well thought out, and an opinion shared by many many people who are still playing the game, and by most people who quit.

Not a rant, at all.

Altho, looking at the locked/moved/deleted threads lately, the last two days, it *does* seem we are being policed of any negativity, and God forbid ya say anything derogatory about KR. :eyes:

But this? Good write-up!

RedDaTeef

07-20-2008, 09:39 AM

100% agree with OP!!
Nicely Put.

Sunrise

07-20-2008, 09:39 AM

aye its a good write up. Heres my question tho. You have keeped paying over the years for bad service? We all know EA is not the best when it comes to customer sevice also.

So a fool and his money are soon parted?

Other than that I think your story is great. In alot of ways some people are going to say its great. Others are going to say if it was not for these changes UO would of been gone a long time ago. For example. Before tram it was next to impossible to even leave town with out some red ganking ya. They owned the towns. Hence why there is factions and no one does that. Now there is champs. Again the gank squards. But hey just my two cents is all.

The devs did what they thought was best. Now these changes happened years ago..why we still complaining about it? Either move on to other games or try and enjoy this game...For thats all it is. None of us OWN a server or a real town or anything. We just pay to play.

Eslake

07-20-2008, 09:40 AM

Some good points.
I think most agree that AoS was, simply put, the worst thing that ever happened to the game.
(except those who think that Trammel was, but lets not get this one locked too)

As to community, I don't really agree on the reasons it has failed. Community requires 3 things to endure.
Common interests.
Common goals.
Sense of accomplishment.

May player-made towns were decaying and some already deceased before Ren was ever designed, let alone released.

Common interests in UO were usually defense against PKs or BEING PKs. But doing the same thing day in and day out gets boring no matter what that thing is. So sooner or later that common interest is lost.

Common goals, typically skill gains - which you can already see is a temporary thing.. or maybe Helping new players - which only works so long as there is a steady flow of them.

Sense of accomplishment. This is the hard one. What is there to accomplish? Gaining X amount of gold? That doesn't take community. Wiping out the PKs? Not possible since they just rez up re-equip and come back again. MORPGs have always lacked in this area for the development and maintenance of community systems. There are very few ways to give a group of players a sense of accomplishment that doesn't lose all meaning by introducing the next thing to achieve.
If wiping out the army of mongbats as an accomplishment, and the next ordeal is an army of headles.. and then lizardmen.. you see the problems.

The shift to item-based game play was simply wrong. People didn't stick around UO all these years because it had the best graphics, or strongest communities, etc. They stayed because it was unique. 700 points to work with, and 20+ skills to build from.
Item properties demolished that. The skill cap is still there, and the skills still function, but when you can cast a spell that requires 99 skill when you only have 30 in that skill (thanks to items) where does the strength of the game fall?

Unfortunately, it can't be undone. Every character out there has propertied items, artifacts, runic kits, or something now.
Even I would probably quit if they simply took away everything my characters have. Unless of course they did a complete reset so we all started over, and managed to permenantly eliminate the scripters at the same time.

love2winalot

07-20-2008, 09:46 AM

I love it. So True.

GalenKnighthawke

07-20-2008, 10:02 AM

Lord Sir Scott

07-20-2008, 10:10 AM

Awsome work, Very Nice...
Thank you For your Efforts....
WOW!

Thanks from many folks...
SS

Draxous

07-20-2008, 10:21 AM

Great post!! Sums up the general consensus of what the playerbase has felt and thought about how this game has been handled for the past 8+ years.

We've always wanted Ultima Online... not a cookie cutter of Diablo, WoW, EQ, nada... just Ultima.

I appreciate the overwrought, dramatic, pseudo-intellectual eloquence with which you delivered the now-standard "Trammel Ruined UO" argument that we've heard, literally, thousands of times before from dozens of different posters.

The sad thing is that I'm so tired of refuting it that it's getting tempting to just let it win.

You not attempting to refute it does not mean that it hasn't already won. Look around you... people miss the community, the risk versus reward system and most importantly the uniqueness of Ultima Online.

Cookie cutting this game into a clone of other MMOs out there was the worst business strategy ever. This is a sandbox MMO not a theme-park version anyway... why they'd think it was a good idea to try and attempt to shift its core design mid-way through is beyond me.

Again, great post!

MalagAste

07-20-2008, 10:27 AM

While I may agree that AoS did quite a bit to kill the spirit of the game and turn it from a skill based game to an item based game... I will NEVER agree that Trammel had anything to do with destroying the game....

Yes communities died quite a bit after Trammel..... but you must remember that the seer and councilor programs being flushed did far more to destroy the game in my opinion..... Those programs brought the communities together..... what we get now certainly is NOT community oriented....... EVERYONE is in it for THEMSELVES.... what's in it for me! What does this give ME...... Again highly ITEM based. We have lost the community........

Yes I do agree that in days of old when it was kill or be killed you HAD to go out in groups you HAD to belong to a group or you got killed and lost everything. People followed you home and stole your whole house......

How about you quit complaining and just quit and someone will come along and scavenge every thing you leave behind?

What is killing UO is the cheating, whinning, Gimme Gimme attitudes, item based gameplay and dupers, scripters and scammers......

What UO needs is to return to community based projects.... things that really MAKE folk come together work together for the BETTERMENT of all not just for the individual.... I would like to see councilors, Seers, and GM's again..... I'd like to have what they have on the Japanese shards..... Go take a look!... Each of their shards has unique attractive additions all over.... that are there for the entire community not one guild or individual... But my guess is some folk would somehow find a way to corrupt the system and ruin that for everyone....

FarukAlazar

07-20-2008, 10:29 AM

Altho, looking at the locked/moved/deleted threads lately, the last two days, it *does* seem we are being policed of any negativity, and God forbid ya say anything derogatory about KR. :eyes:

But this? Good write-up!

It is a good write-up, that's not what I'm saying. If it goes where certain other posters will probably take it, it will be short lived for UHall. I'm not questioning the mods, its the general population that always drags these things down into a shouting match.:fight:

Sorry for the OT. I'm done.:next:

Emil Ispep

07-20-2008, 10:40 AM

Very well written, and i agree with most of the statements.. however:

WoW has more than nine million

Blizzard included all the trial accounts in aquiring this figure.. not framiliar with EVE, but i can guess the same holds true..

Chapter 4 and 5 are your strong points.

Forgot to mention guilds like FL..

Anyone else notice the downhill slope right after Richard Garriot left? Might have somthing to do with it too.

Extra Value Meal

07-20-2008, 10:41 AM

I did not say that Trammel ruined the game, in fact I said the game was better. The only negative that Trammel caused, which I also explained, was towards the community.

And thanks for the positive feedback.

Lefty

07-20-2008, 10:52 AM

Omnicron

07-20-2008, 10:56 AM

Great write up dude. Just one problem, the proverbial "last nail in the coffin" hasnt been put in yet. That would mean the game is over. As it stands there is still some life in it, but I feel myself losing it again. I just came back a little over two months ago or so, and already feel the "cancel" twitch coming.

Gwendar-SP

07-20-2008, 11:05 AM

Well done. I like to call AoS Age of Stupidy in pollite company. (Age of S****-ups) otherwise because it was so messed up at the start - black holes, crashes, spell books jumpping out of secure containers, ect. So messed up that they gave gifts for sticking with the game.

Restroom Cowboy

07-20-2008, 11:09 AM

Why the IBTM??

It's well written, well thought out, and an opinion shared by many many people who are still playing the game, and by most people who quit.

Not a rant, at all.

Altho, looking at the locked/moved/deleted threads lately, the last two days, it *does* seem we are being policed of any negativity, and God forbid ya say anything derogatory about KR. :eyes:

But this? Good write-up!

TRUTH!!!

Deb

07-20-2008, 11:12 AM

"Yes I do agree that in days of old when it was kill or be killed you HAD to go out in groups you HAD to belong to a group or you got killed and lost everything. People followed you home and stole your whole house......"

This paragraph made me smile as I can not tell you how many times
I had my houses stolen. Even though my husband and brother were
always telling me "TO LEAVE YOUR KEY IN THE BANK":o

GalenKnighthawke

07-20-2008, 11:16 AM

You not attempting to refute it does not mean that it hasn't already won.

Politics is full of instances where the "wrong" argument (the one that was inconsistent with the facts and led to a result no one wanted and no one found favorable) won the day.

If this argument has indeed won, and I hope it hasn't, then this argument can join that long and ignoble tradition.

Like I said....And have said dozens of times over the years....These arguments have more to do with romance than with reality. Romantic, largely fantastical notions of a half-remembered time long past.

If the UO Team ever comes to buy into this flawed, inaccurate, fantastical "logic," then UO, eventually, turns from a "wildly profitable" business into something tossed out with the trash.

*shrugs*

Whatever....Hopefully the UO team reads balance sheets and not these boards.

-Galen's player

Basara

07-20-2008, 11:23 AM

I well remember when UO:R was still on the drawing board.

The Majority of the player base wanted a zone system to solve all the problems, however EA was worrying about losing players to EverQuest and the upcoming release of DAOC and regardless of the communities input on this they carbon copied Brit for a quick fix.

Then the Exodus happened and this is where the majority of the community died, player towns, and the beginning of the genocide of thieves.

You know, this reply sorta makes the point I've been making for years involving all the "Ren killed UO" spewings, though that's not entirely what the poster meant....

UO DID NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. Other games existed, by that point, and many more were in development and testing.

In fact, the "great exodus of players" that the "Ren killed UO" keeps pointing out, ALSO hit the OTHER two games out at the time (EQ & AC), one having its subscription drop, and the other changing from about a 60 percent growth rate on the MMOG subscription charts to about a 15% growth rate. I'd really like to know how a change to UO caused the other games to take simultaneous hits of the exact same type.

What did occur at the time was the explosion of non-MMO multiplayer online gaming (from the growth of broadband, and introduction of games that utilized it), as well as numerous new MMO games (such as DAOC) beng in beta. One only has to look at the web page (forget the link now) that shows all the announced MMOs of the period - and how most of them ended up dying in Alpha or Beta, or shortly after launch.

I remember when I first came to stratics - and all the ads saying "Ultima Online Players: Your new game is here!" I wonder what ever became of "Wish"??? (vaporware, of course, at the end of its beta)

ElRay

07-20-2008, 12:44 PM

o2bavr6

07-20-2008, 12:53 PM

Well written.

I think that the people who did not play UO before AoS will have a hard time relating to what you are talking about.

I still miss the days of sweaty palms and being on the edge of my seat.

Stigmatas

07-20-2008, 12:54 PM

Stigmatas

07-20-2008, 01:01 PM

Politics is full of instances where the "wrong" argument (the one that was inconsistent with the facts and led to a result no one wanted and no one found favorable) won the day.

If this argument has indeed won, and I hope it hasn't, then this argument can join that long and ignoble tradition.

Like I said....And have said dozens of times over the years....These arguments have more to do with romance than with reality. Romantic, largely fantastical notions of a half-remembered time long past.

If the UO Team ever comes to buy into this flawed, inaccurate, fantastical "logic," then UO, eventually, turns from a "wildly profitable" business into something tossed out with the trash.

*shrugs*

Whatever....Hopefully the UO team reads balance sheets and not these boards.

-Galen's player

Whatever....Hopefully the UO team reads balance sheets and not these boards.p\

No worries. The dev team has always been able to see reality. The reality of where the majority played when Ren was launched. There is a reason most all expansions and content are found in Trammel. That reason is not to "ruin the game" LOL

Reality check for the win.

T_Amon_from_work

07-20-2008, 01:03 PM

Chad Sexington

07-20-2008, 01:04 PM

*puts on serious hat*

Here's my take on the whole Trammel thing (without repeating some points the OP made):

There was a problem with rampant murdering and thieving. A change was needed. Trammel was one of many options that could have been implemented. It also turns out that it was one of the worst options to actually execute.

Complete safety wasn't needed, the risk vs. reward for pks and thieves (and other imbalances) just had to be adjusted -- in some cases severely.

But removing player interaction was exactly the worst thing to do.

:stir:

Extra Value Meal

07-20-2008, 01:13 PM

To reiterate my opinion in simpler terms:

Trammel helped UO as a whole, but hurt the community.

AOS ruined the complete essence of UO. This expansion's implementation is similar to that of the Star Wars Galaxy debacle.

I feel AOS did the most damage with little or no good coming out of it while Trammel offered many good features, but its implementation was poor.

K'torr

07-20-2008, 01:26 PM

Nicely done ... AoS clobbering UO is right on the mark as far as I'm concerned. AoS introduced only one thing that (to me) has some worth ... custom housing.

I hope Jeremy, Robert or someone from EA sees this and takes it to heart.

I have no doubt that they will see it, if they haven't already. But take it to heart? I wouldn't hold your breath. No one likes to admit they were wrong. I doubt anyone from EA/Mythic will even acknowledge reading it.

Kratos Aurion

07-20-2008, 01:36 PM

Great read. It actually brought back some of the better memories I had back in the day.

Dermott of LS

07-20-2008, 01:59 PM

Velvathos

07-20-2008, 02:10 PM

I agree with the OP, but the player base can revive the community.. I am a pretty big roleplayer, I have many roleplaying characters, I am from Pacific, a server that has lost a lot of it's roleplayers, and a very much dying server in terms of RP, there is no new blood, I am trying to create new blood, cause RP is what keeps the community going... But everyone is all isolated, nobody interacts, I have an Orc, that is ignored by 90% of the people here on Pacific when I try to interact...

Basaclly, the player base needs to ignore what the developers throw at us.. We need to stand up together and say, in game, not on forums, this is what we want, not this...

Extra Value Meal

07-20-2008, 02:22 PM

...

But the idea that UO would have survived the MMOG market WITHOUT the Trammel ruleset is just wishful thinking.

No arguments there, but it's my belief that the frame of mind of safety and individualism brought forth due to Trammel has helped and hurt the game. It greatly helped the game because people could relax while playing and not be frustrated because of PKs and Thieves. It hurt the game because people began to play with more individualistic intentions while interacting and grouping with others happened less often. I will not fault people for playing the way they want to, I'm merely saying what happened afterwards and now was inevitable.

...

Thus far, NO OTHER MMOG has had any success at releasing with a free-for-all non-con PvP everywhere ruleset... NONE. Right now there is ONE left, and it's been nothing but vapour for how long now? Everything else has been purely consentual PvP systems either by server, or via battlegrounds within servers, or some other style of ruleset that allows people to choose their level of PvP involvement.

EVE: Online is the closest free-for-all non-con PVP will ever get. Players can still be killed in high-sec zones, but only through suicide ganking so there is still some element of risk when traversing secure areas. It's a harsh game and draws the old UO crowd more so than other MMOs.

Uvtha

07-20-2008, 02:45 PM

Dermott of LS

07-20-2008, 02:47 PM

Stigmatas

07-20-2008, 03:52 PM

...

Well, I'll give you my own experience based on gaming in general, not just UO.

When I started UO, I played solo, later joined a guild, went through the various iterations of the guild. I watched people come and people go. We PvPed, we PKed, we crashed, we reformed, we built a town, we PvMed and PvEd, we ran events, we abandoned the town when Trammel came because the ruleset fit us in Trammel and not Felucca (but not after spending a LONG time asking for the ability to move the town to the exact location in Trammel), and over time, most of the guild faded away to other games and things. So there are only a very few of us left.

Back in 1994 I was introduced to Magic the Gathering and soon was caught up in a world not unlike the early days of UO... very active, Firday nights saw the games store packed with every table taken, floorspace taken spilling from the back room into the main store. It was not uncommon to be trading with two people while in the middle of a huge multiplayer while looking up rules for another game across the room. But as time wore on, people came and left, things happened and soon there were much fewer to play with.

I still play with a couple of small "core groups" of players from time to time when I go back to my hometown (but I haven't played down in my current town of residence).

What I see is that afteryou spend months if not years of effort to build something, then see it go through the "life cycle", it's difficult to build up the drive and desire to do it again.

"You can't go back" is a truism that people need to realize. It's never going to feel the same... the magic was in the first time around. Does that mean people should just quit? Nah, it just means that if we spend all of our time trying to regain what we lost, it's going to lead to disappointment if and when we get it. So we have to look forward and try and see what we can do that is new.

What does that mean for me? Well, I'm not good at "leading" from the front. I was always the second man so to speak. I would do what I could to help our guild leader and the guild, but I'm not one to go out and try to recruit what would effectively be a new guild. But by the same token, I'm loathe to drop the guild... though I'm not sure why other than I've been a part of it for over 10 years.

So, I guess my "community support" lately has been on the side of trying to help people understand how the new client works and building better user interfaces for those who use the client.

So I don't really have an answer for the individualistic turn UO took... but I can see how it happened... mostly it's a phenomenon that is bigger than UO.

Great post. It was not "better" back in the day. It was UO's infancy, and no ruleset or in game changes can really account for that feeling we all had back then. It was the novelty that we will never get back. I sometimes wonder what the "Trammel killed UO" crowd really want. Non consentual PVP everywhere? Again? Did they not get the hint that that DID NOT WORK. We needed Trammel. Plain and simple. Now there are some valid arguements on HOW Trammel could have been created (as in, make the original lands...Trammel, and the new facet should have been Fel....which I would not have been opposed to), and the AoS item system, but MMO's that do not evolve die.

The failure of community spirit is nothing short of the players fault. Some of you harp on about Trammel killed the orcs and the vampires and yack yack yack. What's keeping you from roleplaying NOW? The fact you cant kill people? Paaaleease.

Go make your community. Go make your roleplay. Play UO however you want. Go. Now. The biggest thing that ever changed in UO was players attitudes.

"Back in the day" my friends in game were so sick of pk's and all the crap that most of them left for EQ. It's funny how people say how strong community was back then. For me, in the last 3 or so years, UO has never been more community oriented, as I have met my bests friends in UO in those recent years. Go figure.

THP

07-20-2008, 03:56 PM

can i just add plz and please no flames..

wow as not got 10million active players and linage aint got 14m.. yes they got far more than UO for sure .. but jeepers they BOTH count every free 10 day trial ever created HAS active players ..its total nonsense....i wish UO had done the same.. think with the accounts ive had myslef wed be hitting the 20m mark!!!!!if not more....................
:danceb::danceb::danceb:

THP

07-20-2008, 04:03 PM

Haddy G

07-20-2008, 04:35 PM

EVE: Online is the closest free-for-all non-con PVP will ever get. Players can still be killed in high-sec zones, but only through suicide ganking so there is still some element of risk when traversing secure areas. It's a harsh game and draws the old UO crowd more so than other MMOs.

Don't forget when someone steals your ore and you steal it back, then their battleship uncloaks and blasts you ;) Good times :) I wish UO had pvp like Eve.

It Lives

07-20-2008, 04:37 PM

Good Post...

But even Back In the day there were more problems than not. Just as much cheating was going on, just as many exploits. People were a lot more closed mouthed about it all.

Much of the risk and "danger" came from these exploits and cheats rather than a Good opponent or balance.
Just saying...

Extra Value Meal

07-20-2008, 06:33 PM

I sometimes wonder what the "Trammel killed UO" crowd really want. Non consentual PVP everywhere? Again? Did they not get the hint that that DID NOT WORK. We needed Trammel. Plain and simple.

Nowhere in my OP did I ever mention the fact that we were better off without Trammel, I even said that it made the game better.

and the AoS item system,
For all intents and purposes, the AoS item system was a step backward.

but MMO's that do not evolve die.
No argument here, but if it evolves into something that's like everything else (AOS), then you have a problem.

The failure of community spirit is nothing short of the players fault. Some of you harp on about Trammel killed the orcs and the vampires and yack yack yack. What's keeping you from roleplaying NOW? The fact you cant kill people? Paaaleease.
The thing with the RP Orcs and Vamps was that their RPG thrived on killing humans, I'll admit that it could still be done in Felucca, but I guess they had less people interested. I am honestly not sure as I did not play with them.

Go make your community. Go make your roleplay. Play UO however you want. Go. Now. The biggest thing that ever changed in UO was players attitudes.
Again no arguments here, but I guess the lack of players or the urge to even roleplay is what's hurting it. But that isn't the game's fault as already pointed out.

"Back in the day" my friends in game were so sick of pk's and all the crap that most of them left for EQ. It's funny how people say how strong community was back then. For me, in the last 3 or so years, UO has never been more community oriented, as I have met my bests friends in UO in those recent years. Go figure.

It's all about personal experiences and I'm glad you made friends. Nobody is arguing that there is no community when someone looks for it. It's more of an individual's encounter with other people in non-populated locales such as dungeons, bosses etc. There is no cooperation unless it has to be forced like the gauntlet.

For me, I enjoyed the community in those years since trust and reputation were very important. When I played my thief for all those years, I developed a reputation as being honorable and friendly. I'd loot red's remains and give it back to them so they wouldn't kill me, or give something back after I stolen it if the player was down on his luck. After all that time, I gained many friends. I guess I am a tad bitter because my thief is no longer of any value and the friends I once had have gone.

But, as I noted, it's all an individual's experiences. Some may think the community is thriving, while others believe the opposite to be true.

It's probably an answer to a question we'll never know.

Jahira-Tor

07-20-2008, 06:47 PM

It was a lovely story, saddly true.

I dont mind admitting that ive been investigating player run shards just for these reasons.

Velvathos

07-20-2008, 08:14 PM

Good Post...

But even Back In the day there were more problems than not. Just as much cheating was going on, just as many exploits. People were a lot more closed mouthed about it all.

Back in the day, the players were able to deal with cheaters without trying to get help from GM's or the Dev's... Same goes with griefing, I bet more griefing happens in Trammel, than it ever did with Felucca, in Felucca, when you're being griefed, you're actually able to fight back..

Dermott of LS

07-20-2008, 08:25 PM

...

Not really. Griefing or being griefed is NOT facet specific. It's an issue of having too many people in a small area (stepping on toes). There are places in Fel right now that you're more likely to be griefed than others. Same holds true in Trammel based facets, though in different ways.

Of course, aside from house issues (which the intelligent can handle), it's damn near impossible to lose your ingame's life earnings from being griefed in Trammel whereas in Felucca it wasn't uncommon at all.

Surindur

07-20-2008, 08:38 PM

Good points all, except for the two opposing views which seem to have trouble actually reading the posts. Whatever..

Another thing in my opinion that helped to hurt the community a bit was the addition of the guild chat system. No one really talks to each other anymore, or not where anyone would notice. Even in Luna or wbb, you see two or three spammers and fifty people standing around in total silence. If you're not part of that guild or alliance you're just in the dark. Used to be you came upon a group of people somewhere you could hear some gossip, jump in a conversation, get caught up on the latest news, make a few friends, or just chat. Y'know.. interaction on a larger than guild-only level. Sadly enough I see the same thing in the RP community these days. Several times I've been to a tavern or hang-out and seen ten or so people standing around in complete silence for half an hour.. riveting I tell ya!

I think one of the big things that killed off Fel was factions. The exclusion of non-faction members from participation and the outrageous price gouging of town vendors made Trammel just that more appealing to die-hard residents. Theres more, but whatever.. It can't be fixed.

We need a new sandbox. You could take all the good UO and rework some of the bad UO, then toss it all in with a new theme and have a pretty solid MMO.
How much funding do you need to do something like that anyhow?

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 08:45 PM

This post was nothing new...

To boil it all down...

1) Trammel should have never been created.
2) AoS was a mistake.
3) Items should be losable.

Well one of those is actually right. Trammel should have been the only ruleset since beta. The start of this game encouraged people to screw others to get ahead, and if they were really good at screwing others they got farther ahead, and if they could screw others in a group they could win the game. That reputation has plagued UO since birth. Those that were the pkers of yesterday became the much hated scripters of today.

AoS was a mistake...plain and simple. It should have never happened. It had pluses/minuses, but reworking everything in the game to change it 100% in one expansion was a dumb idea.

Items shouldn't have any way of getting lost period. Insurance is a joke. Everything should have been blessed. Name one successful game where you can actually lose items. There are none. I know more people that have left this game due to bugs where they lost items then for any other reason. In a game with million gold suits you can't afford for there to be ANY chance for the players to actually lose items. Most people are not willing to rebuild a 40-50 million gold suit that tooks them months to make. They simply leave the game to go to a game where they know that stupidity won't happen to them again.

Think of it this way...

You just bought a house irl. Someone torches that house and then gets away with it cause hell they were just torching the house because they could. You are more likely to move then to rebuild. Its the exact same with ingame items.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 09:00 PM

Blizzard included all the trial accounts in aquiring this figure.. not framiliar with EVE, but i can guess the same holds true..

Blizzard's worldwide numbers are now over 11 mil, and those were SUBSCRIPTION numbers. It never included trial accounts. It did include people that bought the game and played for 30 days or less though and never renewed subscriptions.

Anyone else notice the downhill slope right after Richard Garriot left? Might have somthing to do with it too.

Funny because this game didn't peak in numbers until right after AoS with 250k. Then it dropped players like crazy as AoS changed almost everything and SWG came out to draw away members at the same time. Not a lot of fresh blood came into MMOs before WoW made them the cool thing to do.

Rand Althor

07-20-2008, 09:04 PM

As a player from Beta, I've ben through it all... here's something to think about... what's been killing the game for the last year or two?....

Vets.... no one but hard core UO players want to play with the 2D client... so EA can't get more subscribers... EA tries to go with a KR version in hopes of getting more people to start playing UO, they plan to spend a little $$ and expand with gargoyles... but there's an uprising in the Vet community, we want our 2D client!!!!!... so EA looks and decides.. well we can't spend $$ to support two different clients... if we ditch 2D for KR, then we lose out hard core base, and gamble with new players coming to KR... so... hat does EA do?.. in my opinion, they leave her on ife support... no extra $$ cause it's a dying player base... so who's to blame?... us old vets that don't want a little change, we can't see that if we accept change and EA can get a larger player base, then with a large plaer base comes more $$ for bug fixes, making the game better, and so on....

So while we all sit here and bitch at EA... look at ourselves, because IMO we also have a part to play in UO's swan song...

Nuff said!.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 09:14 PM

EVE: Online is the closest free-for-all non-con PVP will ever get. Players can still be killed in high-sec zones, but only through suicide ganking so there is still some element of risk when traversing secure areas. It's a harsh game and draws the old UO crowd more so than other MMOs.

I'm relatively certain he said no game has been SUCCESSFUL. Obviously, you like EVE Online, but I would not exactly call them successful. They have no where near the numbers they need to go 10 years. When they get more numbers or go 10 years then you can start calling them successful.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 09:22 PM

Bang on!!!!!!

And what i cannot understand to this day.... is why we cant just stop all 3rd party programs running with UO..

YES UO ASSIST would be gone too but who care!!!if it would stop every other script program out there!!!

I'd care. They will never stop every 3rd party program. They should never try to stop every third party program. STOP BLAMING THE PROGRAMS. Its the people that abuse the systems (gold farmers) that are the problem. The average player using a third party program to script skills does absolutely nothing to hurt the game.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 09:37 PM

=
Vets.... no one but hard core UO players want to play with the 2D client... so EA can't get more subscribers... EA tries to go with a KR version in hopes of getting more people to start playing UO, they plan to spend a little $$ and expand with gargoyles... but there's an uprising in the Vet community, we want our 2D client!!!!!...

Why did you have to bring up KR? This thread wasn't in danger of getting moved until now.

You honestly believe that the game should screw over players that perfer the 2d client for POSSIBLE future players. You give me a KR client that actually functions the way it is susposed to that has a decent UI instead of the thrown together UI it has now and a macro system that actually makes sense then I will bother to play with it. Also, I didn't pay $15 so that I couldn't use UOA. KR has nothing that comes close to the utility in UOA, so why should I play with it. At the very least, allow UOA to work with KR.

so EA looks and decides.. well we can't spend $$ to support two different clients... if we ditch 2D for KR, then we lose out hard core base, and gamble with new players coming to KR... so... hat does EA do?..

Since when can they not support two clients? They have been supporting 2 clients for 8 years just fine. Are you forgetting about the TD client which was actually one of the best UIs EVER in UO?

in my opinion, they leave her on ife support... no extra $$ cause it's a dying player base... so who's to blame?... us old vets that don't want a little change, we can't see that if we accept change and EA can get a larger player base, then with a large plaer base comes more $$ for bug fixes, making the game better, and so on....

Show me numbers not hypatheticals. You ASSUME that KR is going to be the god sent to bringing an influx of new players to the game, and there is NO evidence to support that. I don't even want to play with that buggy POC and I've played UO since 2000.

So while we all sit here and bitch at EA... look at ourselves, because IMO we also have a part to play in UO's swan song...

Nuff said!.

I'll agree with that but not for any reason that you have actually stated.

Nestorius

07-20-2008, 09:51 PM

Eight years after Trammel and five after AOS, we are reading official Ultima Online bulletin boards about the current game.

There is something very addictive about the item collection system of AOS. Every weapon and piece of armor a unique object in the UO universe, so items are special in a way they weren't in the older UO.

On the other hand with AOS, your helmet does not protect your head from attacks to the head. Nor does the material that made the helmet, the shape of the helmet, or the crafter who forged it have any meaningful bearing on the usefulness of the item aside from meditation skill and strength requirements.

Rand Althor

07-20-2008, 09:54 PM

Why did you have to bring up KR? This thread wasn't in danger of getting moved until now.

You honestly believe that the game should screw over players that perfer the 2d client for POSSIBLE future players. You give me a KR client that actually functions the way it is susposed to that has a decent UI instead of the thrown together UI it has now and a macro system that actually makes sense then I will bother to play with it. Also, I didn't pay $15 so that I couldn't use UOA. KR has nothing that comes close to the utility in UOA, so why should I play with it. At the very least, allow UOA to work with KR.

Who said anything about screwing anyone over... were you there for BETA?.. bet not, Like KR the product is sent out, KR was distributed in Beta form to everyone... EA basicaly gave up on it after a few months of complaints.. I beta'd KR and was there on the boards, the players never gave it a chance, so EA gave up on it IMO.. cut their losses and released to the masses to see what kind of response they would get... again, I doubt you were an original UO player with your comments, us first players have lots of stories of working through the ruff stuff the first 6-12 months..

Since when can they not support two clients? They have been supporting 2 clients for 8 years just fine. Are you forgetting about the TD client which was actually one of the best UIs EVER in UO?

Your missing the point.... if EA says... here's 1 mil for UO to develop and suport it... if you use 500 on 2d and 500k on 3d, your not really using the full value of your funding to make a better game that would appeal to a broader base.. this is such a simple business plan... hope I don't have explaine this further...

Show me numbers not hypatheticals. You ASSUME that KR is going to be the god sent to bringing an influx of new players to the game, and there is NO evidence to support that. I don't even want to play with that buggy POC and I've played UO since 2000.

Back to the business plan... Hypatheticals... it's a business plan, UO had one Long before LB had the first line of code written for UO... you don't know until after everything is done, but... fact is there is no new blood in UO.... so how do you get more people to play?... FACT is the 2D client is a turn of for most would be new players, they like the flsh of the newer games... so logic says, if these people wont play your game based on the client, then if you change the client, you may get these people to play... again... fact is that the player base is not expanding, it's contracting... to expand you have to increase the apeal of your product for a larger player base... in any case, I'm not going to try and explain this further... think business case, and hopefully you'll start to undersand, besides making un educated comments....

ravenwaves

07-20-2008, 10:03 PM

Spot on excellent post, everything is almost 100% true imo

Thats why im playing Age of Conan......so sick of dealing with cheaters/exploiters, putting up with AoS on top of that crap made me die a little inside each time I logged on

EA really doesnt deserve your money people, with WAR on the horizon, do you really think they give two-sh!ts about this game? they are milking it for all they can before they pull the plug

ps WAR has had alot of content removed, just so they can release it faster...............What do you expect from a company(EA) that lets hacks and exploits run rampant in their games(UO)?

Oh well, back to AoC

Sigh.........

Yet another person that loves to listen to gossip and other nonsense regarding Warhammer. If you would feel free to read the countless interviews with the devs regarding the removal of many of the capitol cities and 4 classes you would find that they were done with the best interest in mind for the game and the community.

Case in point. While they removed 4 of the capitol cities, they increased the size and function of the two remaining to a point where they have many many more quests, areas, and are overall more of a place you will want to protect against your enemy. They even stated they would be looking at adding the other capitol cities in the future.

When it comes to the classes they were perfectly honest with the community. They removed the four from launch because they did not feel they were great yet. They felt they were ok, but not great. At the same time, they have 20 different careers spanning 6 factions. Each of them serves a specific function ie. tank, healer, ranged dps, melee dps etc. but they all serve it a bit differently. While I would love to go into more detail there, I am tethered by the NDA. Sorry...

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 10:13 PM

Who said anything about screwing anyone over... were you there for BETA?.. bet not, Like KR the product is sent out, KR was distributed in Beta form to everyone... EA basicaly gave up on it after a few months of complaints.. I beta'd KR and was there on the boards, the players never gave it a chance, so EA gave up on it IMO.. cut their losses and released to the masses to see what kind of response they would get... again, I doubt you were an original UO player with your comments, us first players have lots of stories of working through the ruff stuff the first 6-12 months..

I played since 2000. Does it make you special that you played in the first 6-12 months? The answer is no. You are making an arguement that they should kill 2d regardless of what veteran players think about that idea, so yeah you are inferring that they should just screw over all the players currently playing with 2d.

Your missing the point.... if EA says... here's 1 mil for UO to develop and suport it... if you use 500 on 2d and 500k on 3d, your not really using the full value of your funding to make a better game that would appeal to a broader base.. this is such a simple business plan... hope I don't have explaine this further...

Its not that simple at all. They are designing new content then coding it to two different clients. The actual coding process takes a lot less time and a lot less money than the actual designing phase.

Back to the business plan... Hypatheticals... it's a business plan, UO had one Long before LB had the first line of code written for UO... you don't know until after everything is done, but... fact is there is no new blood in UO.... so how do you get more people to play?... FACT is the 2D client is a turn of for most would be new players, they like the flsh of the newer games... so logic says, if these people wont play your game based on the client, then if you change the client, you may get these people to play...

Keyword is MAY. There could be a million different reasons why new players don't want to play your game. I can think of many that have nothing to do with graphics. If I was a newer player I wouldn't play a game where veteran players have such a great advantage over newer players. You are hoping that people may turn to the game if KR is accelerated. You are forgetting that to draw in that new blood you are basically telling everyone that refuses to play KR to quit the game. You really think its good business sense to dump customers that have been paying you for the last 8-10 years in order to go after future customers. Not many businesses would ever try this approach.

again... fact is that the player base is not expanding, it's contracting... to expand you have to increase the apeal of your product for a larger player base... in any case, I'm not going to try and explain this further... think business case, and hopefully you'll start to undersand, besides making un educated comments....

I love how I'm suddenly uneducated when you are being moronic? The problem with your logic is you ASSUME that the KR client will bring in new players. You have NO EVIDENCE to back up thse assumptions, but you just keep making them.

Here are the actual facts:

1) There are many veterans (including myself) that will leave if they discontinue the 2d client.
2) UO has a problem attracting newer players simply because of its low player base (which will be even lower after the people refusing to play anything other than 2d bail) and just because of the age of the game.
3) Killing 2d to impliment a KR only UO will do nothing but alienate the players that are currently playing your game with the hopes that you can replace them with newer players. When those newer players do not come you will realise what a mistake that was.

When you show me actual numbers that indicate that the loss of the players that would only play 2d client can be made up in a month or two by fresh blood then I might lend credence to what you say. Business sense (which you love to bring up) says that you don't kill an income source that has been steady for 8-10 years to try to find another source of income.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 10:16 PM

Sigh.........

Yet another person that loves to listen to gossip and other nonsense regarding Warhammer. If you would feel free to read the countless interviews with the devs regarding the removal of many of the capitol cities and 4 classes you would find that they were done with the best interest in mind for the game and the community.

Case in point. While they removed 4 of the capitol cities, they increased the size and function of the two remaining to a point where they have many many more quests, areas, and are overall more of a place you will want to protect against your enemy. They even stated they would be looking at adding the other capitol cities in the future.

When it comes to the classes they were perfectly honest with the community. They removed the four from launch because they did not feel they were great yet. They felt they were ok, but not great. At the same time, they have 20 different careers spanning 6 factions. Each of them serves a specific function ie. tank, healer, ranged dps, melee dps etc. but they all serve it a bit differently. While I would love to go into more detail there, I am tethered by the NDA. Sorry...

You do realise that you just agreed with what the poster said right? You basically just said that they yanked the content with hopes to add it in again in the future becasue they felt it wouldn't be ready by the deadline, and in typical EA fashion they would rather release an unfinished game then push back the release date a few months.

ravenwaves

07-20-2008, 10:23 PM

You do realise that you just agreed with what the poster said right? You basically just said that they yanked the content with hopes to add it in again in the future becasue they felt it wouldn't be ready by the deadline, and in typical EA fashion they would rather release an unfinished game then push back the release date a few months.

I was going to respond to you but you seem to be lost in your world of everything must be perfect before it is released or the company is screwing you. Good luck with that one. I'll enjoy Warhammer thanks.

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 10:32 PM

I was going to respond to you but you seem to be lost in your world of everything must be perfect before it is released or the company is screwing you. Good luck with that one. I'll enjoy Warhammer thanks.

The Burning Crusade was susposed to be released 3 months before it was but Blizzard didn't feel it would be ready so they pushed the date back to make sure it was. WoW itself missed 2-3 release dates so that Blizzard could make sure the game was as close to finished as possible. Many other games have missed release dates so that they would be sure to be finished before they were released. I never said it had to be perfect. What I said is that they shouldn't worry about a deadline to the point that they will release a game that they want to add back elements they had previously planned on implimenting simply because those elements were not finished by the deadline.

I never said the company was screwing me either. I think the fact that WoTLK is coming out in the same month will be interesting for both WoW and WarHammer, and I believe that the reason WAR needs to hit that deadline is because they are trying to get people to not buy WoTLK. The only issue is that WoW is a known success and WAR is a total shot in the dark. I wouldn't mind trying WAR, but EA has no history of a truely successful MMO by WoW standards, and I really don't want to play another ghost town game like UO and DAoC.

It sounds like the truth hurts, and you simply don't want to admit that.

Rand Althor

07-20-2008, 10:37 PM

I love how I'm suddenly uneducated when you are being moronic? The problem with your logic is you ASSUME that the KR client will bring in new players. You have NO EVIDENCE to back up thse assumptions, but you just keep making them.

Here are the actual facts:

1) There are many veterans (including myself) that will leave if they discontinue the 2d client.
2) UO has a problem attracting newer players simply because of its low player base (which will be even lower after the people refusing to play anything other than 2d bail) and just because of the age of the game.
3) Killing 2d to impliment a KR only UO will do nothing but alienate the players that are currently playing your game with the hopes that you can replace them with newer players. When those newer players do not come you will realise what a mistake that was.

When you show me actual numbers that indicate that the loss of the players that would only play 2d client can be made up in a month or two by fresh blood then I might lend credence to what you say. Business sense (which you love to bring up) says that you don't kill an income source that has been steady for 8-10 years to try to find another source of income.

There's this company called old coffee... se they've been selling coffee for the past 60 years... now they used to be a really good coffee company... the last few years, this new company called starbduds has this fancy new coffee, with multiple blends... starbuds is taking all the market share of all the coffee companies... now, Old Coffee is not making as much money as they used too, seems as their customers get older and die off, Old coffee can't get new customers... they think about flashing up their coffee houses to attract new customers, but the old guys who sit in the back, say they will stop coming for coffee... there's no proof that by offering better coffee blends and making the place fancy that the new blood will start coming and uying cofee from Old Coffee... it's all hogwash, no proof.. business smishness.. I like old coffee the way it is.. I don't want to splash the place up, I don't want to learn again, I like things just the way they are... fresh napkins, and cleaner cups.. better fix the dishwasher, thats all you need...
Yup.. thats all ya need...

Definition of insanity is something like this (Quote from Dr. Ko, but not the definition of insanity..) If you give the same you'll get the same... For insanity, you would expect something different.. if the player base continues to die out... you'd have to be insane to belive a few bug fix's will get more people playing this game..

UO is dying... long and slow...

It needs some money, and a good coat of paint, and some new fixtures, and it may be able to turn around from an dirty ol broken house, to a beauiful home... but we don't want to risk that, slow death is preferable.. we don't want to go through any pains to get the game better with more people... we like sitting in the back, us old cogers... just leave things as they are... fix a few of them nasty bugs... that all we need...... anyone seen my cane?..

galefan2004

07-20-2008, 10:56 PM

There's this company called old coffee... se they've been selling coffee for the past 60 years... now they used to be a really good coffee company... the last few years, this new company called starbduds has this fancy new coffee, with multiple blends... starbuds is taking all the market share of all the coffee companies... now, Old Coffee is not making as much money as they used too, seems as their customers get older and die off, Old coffee can't get new customers...

You are comparing the coffee business to the gaming industry? Yeah that makes sense. Its even funnier that you are trying to make this arguement on graphics alone. I guess UO would be the old company and WoW would be the new company. What you seem to fail to realise is that WoW has MANY features that UO doesn't and graphics is just ONE of them. There is also no evidence that the old company is going to defeat the new company by trying to beat them at their own game. Its more likely that they will attempt to adapt and end up losing what customers they did have in the process, and then just finish it all with a good old bankruptcy.

they think about flashing up their coffee houses to attract new customers, but the old guys who sit in the back, say they will stop coming for coffee... there's no proof that by offering better coffee blends and making the place fancy that the new blood will start coming and uying cofee from Old Coffee... it's all hogwash, no proof.. business smishness.. I like old coffee the way it is.. I don't want to splash the place up, I don't want to learn again, I like things just the way they are... fresh napkins, and cleaner cups.. better fix the dishwasher, thats all you need...
Yup.. thats all ya need...

Lol. I love how UO is coffee now. You honestly think that store is going to tell those regular customers to get the hell up and walk out the door cause the "fresh blood" is going to suddenly come to the old place. A new flashy Chinese place came into our neighborhood. The older place is still doing just fine. They didn't change anything to try to beat the new company. They just kept doing the same things that they were already doing better. In the end the fact that they were doing things better meant they kept the customers while thise new place started losing customers after around 4-5 months. The problem is that UO is attempting to clone WoW, and the true vision of UO is already dead, and now you want them to try to change their graphics to WoW clone as well?

Definition of insanity is something like this (Quote from Dr. Ko, but not the definition of insanity..) If you give the same you'll get the same... For insanity, you would expect something different.. if the player base continues to die out... you'd have to be insane to belive a few bug fix's will get more people playing this game..

The problem with that is you assume that the graphics will help the game. It hasn't yet and how long has KR been out? The majority of veteran players won't even touch KR. Hell, the majority of newer players that I have seen won't even touch KR. If you are right in your reasoning KR should have been a mega hit, and so far it hasn't been. Its already developed, so please explain why no one even wants to touch it for the most part, if you say it is the end all of making UO get new customers?

UO is dying... long and slow...

Funny thing here is that you honestly believe that. UO is losing players like every 10 year old game should. After awhile, veterans want to try something new. The thing is that UO still pays its bills. When UO can no longer pay its bills then you can claim that it is dieing. Right now its just looking unhealthy.

It needs some money, and a good coat of paint, and some new fixtures, and it may be able to turn around from an dirty ol broken house, to a beauiful home...

By all means please tell me how getting rid of about 90% of your player base (rough average of those that play 2d over KR) is going to get you more money. That is the problem with your logic. You are willing to throw away a steady source of income for the chance at getting more income in the future. You have NO proof that that new income will even come, but you can be sure that you are getting rid of income sources by driving your players from the game. That makes perfect sense to me.

but we don't want to risk that, slow death is preferable.. we don't want to go through any pains to get the game better with more people... we like sitting in the back, us old cogers... just leave things as they are... fix a few of them nasty bugs... that all we need...... anyone seen my cane?..

You couldn't be more of a diva if you tried. The thing is that you have yet to prove that these new players will flock to the game simply because you change the graphics. You ever think that maybe people don't play UO because they don't like UO? Maybe they don't like the systems (name one other successful game that allows you to actualy lose items). Maybe they don't like the cheaters (this game has a HORRIBLE reputation in the MMO market). Maybe they don't like the graphics.

You want to dump the old player base to update the graphics and just hope that everyone wants to come to UO then because it looks all pretty all of a sudden. If you want to take that gamble then go ahead, but you are better off dropping your coins in a slot machine.

AesSedai

07-20-2008, 11:03 PM

... anyone seen my cane?..- So you're hobbled then?
'Tis alright Rand, the web is weaving.
('lest I believe)

Visolara16

07-20-2008, 11:06 PM

You couldn't be more right. Well written!

FrejaSP

07-20-2008, 11:33 PM

Sadly this is true

Chapter 1 - A Unique Experience

When risk and consequence was actually common in online games, Ultima Online stood above the rest for delivering an engrossing and open-ended online experience rife with danger.[....]
You can place houses, run a tavern or other place of business, hunt, mine, fish, treasure hunt, kill other players or steal from them. Grind was minimal as there were no levels to achieve, but only skills to gain. The skill system was also open ended and a player could be whatever they wanted. A lockpicking thief, a jack-of-all-trades craftsman, a bard tamer or a tank mage, all options were available and hybridization was encouraged.

That was what made me love UO, the freedom, the danger and the community it made.
Some will say we still can do all this but it's not true. The risk and consequence is almost gone, the grind had increased badly, BoDs, plants and other time eating stuff like sorting items and trying to put suits together for a vendor or hunting.

UO was a game that offered true consequences for your actions. If you were killed, your belongings could be taken by other players and you had the choice of either fighting back to reclaim your possessions or head back to town to restock. Thieves skulked around town peaking into people's backpacks to steal their hard-earned goods and murderers roamed the countryside looking for players to kill and loot. Nothing was safe and because of this, bustling communities developed to help protect the innocents and combat those who would do harm to their fellow players.

This still exist on Siege but because we are so few now, the cummunity is falling apart. AoS was what mostly killed Siege, when itims become to expensive and took to much time to replace items, it made to many give up even when they love Siege.

Instead of making a new land mass for players looking to escape from PKs and thieves, the developers in all their wisdom duplicated the entire game and inevitably split the playerbase in half.

No matter how they had done it, it would never had worked unless the new land had been on Trammel servers, where PvP only was possible in the PvP systems like wars and factions.
They started to ruin UO already when they added stat loss and made a mega hate between red and blue.
UO:R did more damage than just the split. On Siege we lost whole guilds to UO:R even when we did not get Trammel. They changes magery and killed the tankmages and on Siege, changing skills could take 6 months or more at that time.

Admittedly, this particular expansion allowed UO to see its highest subscription numbers and gave its players the opportunity to avoid frustration.
Maybe but many was accounts for second house in Trammel. I don't think we got more players because lots of PvP'ers quit the game at that time.
Trammel was filled with houses very fast and only one house on an account was allowed. I think most got a second house or two at that time.

Chapter 4 - The Age of Shadows: All Risk Goes Out the Window

If you want the true killer of UO, you need not look any further than Age of Shadows. Dubbed the Age of Sh#t by the majority of its playerbase, this "expansion" was the final nail in the coffin for UO as all risk was completely and utterly removed. With this expansion came new and overpowering skills and weapons, on top of that the item system received a complete revamp. The transformation from a skill-based MMO into an item-based and item-whoring game was achieved. There were no longer set item properties and everything turned into numbers, percentages and resistances. Instead of having an Accurate Broadsword of Power, a somewhat powerful item at the time, you had this garbage:

The BoD system came with AoS and players started to have several BoD runners, some had upto 20 accounts with bod runners, many had 2 or 3.
This increase of BoD accounts and more house accounts with new land in Malas made it impossible to see how many players we lost with AoS.
EA got more accounts but less players. The account first started to drop when EA later changed the BoD system so multi accounts was not needed.

With every item being practically unique in its own way, making them near-impossible to get again if you lose them, the system of looting other people's stuff would obviously no longer have a place in this game. The answer came in the form of a system called Insurance.

Lucky we did not get Item Insurance on Siege but we did get some blessed weapons that messed up the balance on the shard.
Second, making items more unique together with old lootings rules made alot give up Siege, it was just to hard to replace items. It's better now, runic is easier to get and armslore add more resist/damage to our items so artifacts is not that unique now. Now our biggest proplem is to get the players back to Siege, the shard start to be playable again but it's boring if the risk is missing because of to few players.

Not only did it single-handedly destroy the Thieving profession it has allowed godly players to remain godly players. [...]
This isn’t right. Due to these reasons, UO's community has all but shattered because players no longer have to help each other to get by.

Thives are alive on Siege and you do not need mills to get a good suit. Some will still put alot money in a good suit, but they will have to fight well to keep it.

Chapter 5 - Inaction

Currently UO is plagued with cheaters and scripters who are crippling the ingame economy while forcing many players to quit the game, but developers have done next to nothing to solve the issue.

That's not true, the devs had done alot to stop it, changes to resource spawn, spawn that can't be done with pets and a script and making items less unique help alot too. Most scripters want to make RL money from UO, if their profite drop, they will move on.
Sadly they keep making new ways for scripters to make money, like collections quests.
Removing Item Insurance on normal shards would kill alot of scripters because noone will pay mills for items that can be lost easy.

Chapter 6 - The Great Game that Could Have Been

Ultima Online could have stayed as one of the most unique MMOs on the market if a vocal minority and an incompetent dev team hadn't messed it all up. UO once offered a truly unique experience, but tried too hard to please the masses and be like all the rest. What we're left with is a hollow husk of a game that is best left ignored to die. It really pains me to say it as UO was a big part of my life for a long time, but it's just not the same game it once was. Any remnants of Old UO have all been lost to the sands of time. What a shame.

I won't call the devs incompetent, they did what they believed was good for UO. It's almost impossible to see how a change will turn out on live shards and some players will always find ways to cheat.

I do however agree, UO took a wrong road back in 1998, where they believed the non PvP'ers would get them most money. They should had made new shards for the non PvP'ers and keeped the old shards with non con PvP and players justice and without the split, Ages of Stuff

Nok

07-20-2008, 11:38 PM

Hi EVM,

At its peak, UO boasted around 100K subscribers.

Just a minor FYI, actually at UO's peak... UO had just over 250k subscribers.

FrejaSP

07-20-2008, 11:56 PM

Hi EVM,

Just a minor FYI, actually at UO's peak... UO had just over 250k subscribers.

Including BoD runner and house holder accounts. I think 100k players may be max UO had.

In the first 1-2 years of UO, it did hit 100k accounts but it may had been even more players, whole families was sharing accounts. UO had less land, only old Britainnia and T2A and onlt 8 shards I think.
No wonder UO is a desert now with 20+ shards and 3x the land.
We really need to merge shards and split them up in normal shards and PvP shards.

Sneaky Que

07-21-2008, 12:18 AM

good read

RoycroftLS

07-21-2008, 05:09 AM

Agreed cept for the whole "you need a math degree to understand aos properties lolol" cuase thats plain nonsense. The new item system was poorly implimented, but I think it takes little to no effort to understand.

Little to no effort?

After they nerfed weapon leeching you need an excel table to figure out if a certain weapon's mana leech is worthwhile:
http://www.uoguide.com/Hit_Mana_Leech

Even after the devs explained how the damage increase mechanics worked in a FoF, I doubt that half the people in the game fully understand that property:
http://www.uo.com/fof/fiveonfriday63.html

And don't even get me started about luck:
http://uo.stratics.com/content/basics/luck.shtml

Extra Value Meal

07-21-2008, 05:20 AM

That's not true, the devs had done alot to stop it, changes to resource spawn, spawn that can't be done with pets and a script and making items less unique help alot too. Most scripters want to make RL money from UO, if their profite drop, they will move on.
You're right, they've done a lot more than nothing. Sadly though it seems like nothing has been done since scripting is still alive and well in full swing. I was under the impression that the changes to resources, namely the wood spawns, encouraged scripting since all the resources were randomized or what have you. That was my impression anyway. I'll agree about the spawns and the reduction of artifact rarity, I'm sure it did help a good deal. The only thing that's left on the table of any value to scripters are the Val hammers and Barbed kits, but even those are going down in price immensely.

Sadly they keep making new ways for scripters to make money, like collections quests.
No doubt, I remember when the community collections were first being tested. Brilliant idea no doubt about it, but poorly implemented to encourage scripting. I remember there was a vocal minority of players who were against the collections because it encouraged scripting. It's a shame it wasn't reworked before being released.

Removing Item Insurance on normal shards would kill alot of scripters because noone will pay mills for items that can be lost easy.
Perhaps, but you run the risk of peeving most of your player base and I don't think EA will want to make that move. AOS and the item system is far too gone for insurance removal to work. People aren't used to losing their items and I don't think they ever want to experience it. Especially in today's UO. But if artifacts are becoming more and more common which is the case now, the removal of insurance might not be a big deal, but I don't think we'll ever see it removed.

I won't call the devs incompetent, they did what they believed was good for UO. It's almost impossible to see how a change will turn out on live shards and some players will always find ways to cheat.
You're right, Incompetent is too strong of a word. I'll alter it in the OP. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the Devs, I have no clue as to what goes on behind closed doors. I'm sure all devs loved UO when they developed it, I hope so anyway, but some ideas are far better than others.

I do however agree, UO took a wrong road back in 1998, where they believed the non PvP'ers would get them most money. They should had made new shards for the non PvP'ers and keeped the old shards with non con PvP and players justice and without the split, Ages of Stuff
It's tough to say what would have happened if the Devs went in another direction.

Mulch

07-21-2008, 05:35 AM

UO is still pretty unique in its gameplay, though over the years the developers really worked to erode the original systems and remove depth from systems.
(adding mathematic formulas behind armor and damage is not what I consider more depth)

But like others said the developers need to decide which the strengths are they want to concentrate.
It was not pvp, crafting, thieving the last few years but more pve and some good additions to housing. But those additions were in no way innovative enough to entice people to stay with the game and it might be technologically impractical to try with the UO code.

So they have to decide if they go the way of telling world spanning stories like AC does each month (though I doubt the systems are capable of it, nor does ea give the resources for it).
RvR is also not what UO could cater as the systems are not in place.

Best bet I would think is going the sims way with enhancing housing and pets and adding pve and a few stories when they can. They followed this for quite some time and it seems to keep players and with the quitting sims crowd might attract that fanbase.

RavenWinterHawk

07-21-2008, 05:36 AM

After reading various threads about the topic and being frustrated by some of the hollow answers, I decided write this "book" to portray my opinions on the whole "What ruined UO" debate.

Some bits I wrote myself while others I wrote awhile ago for my column. Link (http://www.411mania.com/games/columns/79876)

Chapter 1 - A Unique Experience

When risk and consequence was actually common in online games, Ultima Online stood above the rest for delivering an engrossing and open-ended online experience rife with danger. UO was and still is one of the rare breeds of MMOs considered to be sandboxes. In sandbox MMOs, unlike their more linear brethren, players can do whatever they want to whomever and wherever. You can place houses, run a tavern or other place of business, hunt, mine, fish, treasure hunt, kill other players or steal from them. Grind was minimal as there were no levels to achieve, but only skills to gain. The skill system was also open ended and a player could be whatever they wanted. A lockpicking thief, a jack-of-all-trades craftsman, a bard tamer or a tank mage, all options were available and hybridization was encouraged.

UO was a game that offered true consequences for your actions. If you were killed, your belongings could be taken by other players and you had the choice of either fighting back to reclaim your possessions or head back to town to restock. Thieves skulked around town peaking into people's backpacks to steal their hard-earned goods and murderers roamed the countryside looking for players to kill and loot. Nothing was safe and because of this, bustling communities developed to help protect the innocents and combat those who would do harm to their fellow players. The only other commercial MMO to offer similar gameplay is EVE: Online and it is an extremely successful game.

Chapter 2 - The Golden Age

At its peak, UO boasted around 100K subscribers. Even though this number pales in comparison to WoW and Lineage 2, where WoW has more than nine million and Lineage 2 over 14 million, it was an accomplishment during the infancy of MMOs. While arguments still rage about what caused UO's descent into oblivion, I can honestly say, as a UO member for eight years, it was a combination of events ranging from extremely poor decision making, loud-mouthed individuals demanding more items over bugfixes and just simple excuses. Sadly UO's golden age was extremely brief as game developers began to cater to players who wanted little to no risk or consequence, zero need to interact with their fellow players and items, items, items. These players no longer wanted to risk anything and the community degenerated into a gimmie-gimme mob with an insatiable appetite for items.

Chapter 3 - The Further Rise of the Game, but at the Cost of Its Community

After years of flooded complaints about being incessantly killed, stolen from or griefed, developers finally realized what had to be done, but instead of thinking things through and coming up with a solution that would benefit all players, they released the poorly-implemented Renaissance expansion in 2000. Instead of making a new land mass for players looking to escape from PKs and thieves, the developers in all their wisdom duplicated the entire game and inevitably split the playerbase in half. Trammel offered complete sanctuary from ruffians while Felucca was old UO with all the trimmings. In Trammel, there was no longer the need for players to protect each other and no longer a purpose for Guilds to form to combat PKs. Since Trammel had the safety, people concerned themselves more with controlling monster spawns over anything else while begging and pleading to reduce the risk of being scammed, griefed or looted.

Do I think Trammel was a good thing for this game? Although the expansion was very poorly implemented, I feel UO bettered in terms of gameplay and content, but in regards to its communities it was a step backwards. Trammel’s implementation reminds me of how EVE: Online currently handles its player killing systems. If you’re not familiar with EVE: Online, let me explain the similarities for you. You have the relative safety areas called High-sec where you can be killed, but your attacker gets destroyed by Concord, similar to UO’s Guards. Players in High-sec, dubbed Carebears by their pirate and pvp brethren, are a little more individualistic and are content with being left alone while they perform missions, mine or manufacture. While Trammel did not have PKing, you still ran the risk of being looted and griefed by your fellow player. And then you have the completely unsafe areas dubbed Lowsec and 0.0 where killing and pirating was encouraged. Here, the similarities to Felucca are apparent.

Admittedly, this particular expansion allowed UO to see its highest subscription numbers and gave its players the opportunity to avoid frustration. I’ll admit, I really did enjoy the ability to monster bash with my fellow players and then hit Felucca if I felt the urge for a little pvping. Due to the newfound safety of Trammel though, it helped pave the way for future players looking to abolish even more risk in the game turning UO into a Lite-singleplayer game. And then we move towards the worse hit of them all.

Chapter 4 - The Age of Shadows: All Risk Goes Out the Window

If you want the true killer of UO, you need not look any further than Age of Shadows. Dubbed the Age of Sh#t by the majority of its playerbase, this "expansion" was the final nail in the coffin for UO as all risk was completely and utterly removed. With this expansion came new and overpowering skills and weapons, on top of that the item system received a complete revamp. The transformation from a skill-based MMO into an item-based and item-whoring game was achieved. There were no longer set item properties and everything turned into numbers, percentages and resistances. Instead of having an Accurate Broadsword of Power, a somewhat powerful item at the time, you had this garbage:

http://www.411mania.com/game_article_pictures/4574.jpg
I didn't know I needed a math degree to loadout my character.

With the introduction of AOS, many overpowering yet easy to acquire arms and armors were introduced. These items, coupled with new overpowering skills allowed players to solo most high-end monsters indefinitely. This allowed players the freedom to not worry about forming a hunting party to fight and farm relatively tough monsters and bosses themselves.

With every item being practically unique in its own way, making them near-impossible to get again if you lose them, the system of looting other people's stuff would obviously no longer have a place in this game. The answer came in the form of a system called Insurance. For a small sum of gold, you could insure your items so they could never be looted or stolen ever again. Considering that it went against the grain of everything Ultima and most importantly challenge, it was the dumbest addition in history.

Not only did it single-handedly destroy the Thieving profession it has allowed godly players to remain godly players. It has required many to piece together multi-million gold suits in order to compete and in many ways it has helped the individual player but in the same respect it has damaged the community as well. There is no longer a need to purchase weapons and armor from crafters when you don't have a chance of losing a specific item altogether. Items are not leaving the system because of Insurance. When I pieced together my 1400 luck suit on my tamer, I knew it was the set I’d be using for years to come. This isn’t right. Due to these reasons, UO's community has all but shattered because players no longer have to help each other to get by.

The funny thing is lead developers at the time came out and admitted they were heavily influenced by Diablo 2 and WoW when it was in development. So instead of coming up with something original, the developers decided to copy off existing games. Subscription numbers plummeted after this and UO has never been able to fully recover since.

Chapter 5 - Inaction

Currently UO is plagued with cheaters and scripters who are crippling the ingame economy while forcing many players to quit the game, but developers have done next to nothing to solve the issue. Scripting has affected the community in many different ways, it has completely made the honest resource gatherer obsolete. It has put many legit player ran vendors out of business since Scripters can control the market on select products. Finally, it has jaded the community so much so that everybody thinks everyone else is scripting or cheating. And perhaps these accusations are quite true. Suggestions to help fix the myriad of other problems have otherwise been ignored and most players believe they are just being milked for all their worth while EA shifts its attention to Warhammer Online, which is currently going through its own problems at the moment.

One sure sign of this came when UO reached its 10-year anniversary. A stunning achievement for any game especially MMOs, but all players got in return for their commitment was a stupid gift rehash. That's some dedication for ya.

Chapter 6 - The Great Game that Could Have Been

Ultima Online could have stayed as one of the most unique MMOs on the market if a vocal minority and an incompetent dev team hadn't messed it all up. UO once offered a truly unique experience, but tried too hard to please the masses and be like all the rest. What we're left with is a hollow husk of a game that is best left ignored to die. It really pains me to say it as UO was a big part of my life for a long time, but it's just not the same game it once was. Any remnants of Old UO have all been lost to the sands of time. What a shame.

Well written. Truth to the point.

Here is how they save UO.

The next land mass has to be well everything you presented that was removed or added (insurance).

1. Land Mass that is beyond the rule of Brit. No insurance. Thieving and Killing is allowed. Land mass is huge. No choke points. All monsters and rewards are randomized. No true farming.

2. Exploration is the name of the game in this massive land. Mining, exploring the lands, the cities, might net rewards. Monster encounters pop up. Random dungeons appear. NOTHING IS STATIC. You must explore.

3. Not only is there thieving but stealable items from the land remain stealable on all the facets. Basically if you deal in stolen geods they can be stolen. For instance in the NEW LAND MASS... You steal and artifact 5 snow globe. Well that item is now considered stolen. It is not bound by insurance. So if you take it to trammel. A theif there could steal it. You buy it off a vendor. It could be stolen before you get it home.

Anyway, I wrote lots about this.

Basically, this gives us another unexplored land. You can go or not. You die. You die. It will remove the silly uber balances. Create a need for armour. Give us a huge exlporable not static world.

Now we have everything we could want. You have to look at UO as land masses with different rules of law. Give it all to us.

Traveller

07-21-2008, 05:46 AM

I'm relatively certain he said no game has been SUCCESSFUL. Obviously, you like EVE Online, but I would not exactly call them successful. They have no where near the numbers they need to go 10 years.

I beg your pardon? EVE online has been going on for 5 years, it has almost the same number of subscribers that UO had at his peak, and the subs are still rising after 5 years. I am curious to know your definition of "successful".

Salty Pete

07-21-2008, 05:51 AM

I beg your pardon? EVE online has been going on for 5 years, it has almost the same number of subscribers that UO had at his peak, and the subs are still rising after 5 years. I am curious to know your definition of "successful".

I am guessing WoW like numbers.

Connor_Graham

07-21-2008, 06:05 AM

Sarphus

07-21-2008, 06:16 AM

Azureal

07-21-2008, 06:17 AM

This entire post is a waste of time. UO has been around nearly 11 yrs now and is still here, and still kicking. If it had been "ruined" it would have been shut down years ago. "Some" people may not like how it's turned out, but since UO is still here for them to complain about on a daily basis, someone must be doing something right.

*goes back to farming for turn in points*

+1

Perfect. The anti-trammel, anti-aos crows can keep screaming about the downfall of all that was great and wonderful, but the point of the matter is that UO is still here. Trammel is still here. AoS is still here.

Whats most ironic is that the people complaining most are still here too.

If UO is so dead, delete all your characters then click the Cancel Subscription link and be done with it.

Omnius

07-21-2008, 06:23 AM

You sir, are so right, it should hurt to not read this twice. In fact it is the loss of community that killed UO and the factors you listed are why the community was killed.

Even Shadowbane servers have more people than most UO Shards these days and that game was so rife with bugs that it flopped from the start.

Omnius

07-21-2008, 06:28 AM

Ad Hominem wins? BOOO!

I agree with Galen. The OP is actually inaccurate on a number of their overly wordy "facts". For starters, there was a time when UO had > 200k subscriptions (before AoS) That was AoS release and if you didn't realize it was from folks purchasing up tons of accounts for rewards, housing etc.

Also, the consept that a majority of gamers prefer a game where you can't escape fel is flatly innacurate. If that were true, Siege would be as busy as atlantic. Simply put, the UO version of the pre-AoS ruleset is the most underplayed shard in UO. That's not what he said. In fact if you derived this I suggest rereading. Removal of danger and any risk at all killed the communal aspect of this game, the result was the slow entropy of the active player-base.

I think the consept that UO failed with AoS is asinine also. The only possible conclusion you can reach with that logic is that UO has been failing for something like 8 yrs and was only successful for about 2. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. This portion illustrates your total failure to read a brilliant post. Please keep it friendly or reread the content of the OP

The comment about how the AoS changes that added complexity with item mods is just your opinion, so I can't refute it based on facts. I'll just say that some of us LIKE mathematical complexity in systems. Personally, I'd rather have a complex system where there is room for a lot of different viable strategies to what we had pre-AoS. Pre-AoS I played a dexer, and all there was to it was watching my char swing at something and then backing up to heal with bandages when I was getting hurt faster than I could heal. I MUCH prefer how things are now. UO was never just that simple unless you lost more than you won. the most basic skill a dexer had was the ability to predict the path his enemy would take and intercept him.

I don't want to poo poo your thread, but you're basically complaining and using fiction as fact, which I don't think is fair.
And I suppose new games don't cater to pvp?

RavenWinterHawk

07-21-2008, 06:31 AM

Why is it so hard for people not to get caught of definitions?

Ruined or not.

Success what is it.

The OP post is accurate read from start to finish.
Go argue number of subscribers... insignificant. Its down.
Go argue what ruined means. OP states there are 100's of things you can do. Its not ruined in that respect. The game has diminished consequences. Which cant be subdued by saying "go fight in fel".

You now have the ability to change class in a instant (soulstones) and never run risk of true loss (beyond some gold). BORING. Death is mere inconvience to... "why isnt the boss monsters dropping things faster", "its the random generator I never get anything", "now that I got 25, please make them rarer so I can make more gold".

Is it me... Dont you all hear (my whinning) and our whinning?

That is the failure in the game. Its not insurance, or Tram, or killing thieving but how it was poorly implemented. Portions of the changes might be good. But instead we got a never ending shoveling buffet and candyland.

But go argue.

The point being there is compromise. I fail to see why the DEVS dont create the compromise. You cant take away whats there. BUT YOU CAN ADD endless worlds.

What you cant do.
Create more static boss spawns.
Create more static drops.
Create more static stealables.
Create new characture classes that further muttify or charactures.

Come on say it with me, wear and tear, randomizing, death and theft.

You can do it. And Tram will stay as is. And Fel will stay as is. All will stay but new will come.

Try it.

All will stay and new will come. "ah cleansing breath."

hawkeye_pike

07-21-2008, 06:32 AM

I actually like this game.

TheScoundrelRico

07-21-2008, 06:39 AM

Evm,

I'm not sure how you do it, but you do. (stay on a production shard). I don't know if you even play a thief anymore, but you have hung onto Atlantic for a long time...I'll give ya credit for that. Nice write up, but don't expect this to last long on UHall. It will probably be moved shortly.

From one old guildy to another...COME TO SIEGE!!!...la

Landicine

07-21-2008, 06:44 AM

I'm going to disagree with this post. Everquest was the big fish for a while, but according to http://www.mmogchart.com/, it has dropped a ton as well. Games get old. People move on. A few people stick with a certain game, but many move to the next big thing.

I also think that the "risk vs reward" pardigm is flawed. A sandbox may need the dark corner with scorpions and fire ants, but it needs other things otherwise it degenerates. Shadowbane had dropping numbers despite giving players risk and risk-based community. I was part of a player town in those risk-filled days, and I can tell you, the community suffered a good deal because of PKs. I continued to run events in Felucca until I finally got so fed up with having events disrupted or ruined. I may talk about those sentimental early days, but I also remember there were things that made me furious. I also wasn't part of a town because "risk" forced me to band together, but because I generally liked the people I was hanging out with. I would probably have found a similar group even if there hadn't been people trying to kill me.

The zerg-like nature of some pvp also goes against "risk vs reward." A solo murderer will never do as well as a group of killers even though his risk is a lot higher. He will usually be rewarded with a long search for a red healer. Killers often went after the weakest members of the community (new players, crafters, miners) because they got more reward for less risk.

I do think UO has put less emphasis on community building than it should, but I also think the risk-promoted side of community building has gotten tools over the years that have been ignored (factions being the big one). Also community building requires more than just top down work. It requires a playerbase willing to do things for the sake of the community and sometimes put individual goals/greed on hold. Communities are hard to build, and blaming it all on items, items, items is foolish.

FarukAlazar

07-21-2008, 07:23 AM

I actually like this game.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you for simplifying this whole thing down to what really counts.

Surgeries

07-21-2008, 07:51 AM

...

UO:R's biggest failure was that they implemented the rulesets BACKWARDS which is what killed most of the player run establishments.

AOS's biggest failure was not sticking within the framework of the original magic item system while adding in the new mods (and balancing them accordingly).

But the idea that UO would have survived the MMOG market WITHOUT the Trammel ruleset is just wishful thinking.

Thus far, NO OTHER MMOG has had any success at releasing with a free-for-all non-con PvP everywhere ruleset... NONE. Right now there is ONE left, and it's been nothing but vapour for how long now? Everything else has been purely consentual PvP systems either by server, or via battlegrounds within servers, or some other style of ruleset that allows people to choose their level of PvP involvement.

QFT.

Lineage does get the closest, from my research, and even that one has puffed up sub numbers, because of all of the internet cafes, and the creation of a new "Account", for every time a person makes a new account at one of these establishments.

But then...even then...in order to LOSE bad karma, and the Murderer Status that killing Innocents bring...the players don't get to sit at a moongate as a ghost, to burn their counts. They have to PvM!! Kill Dumb Monsters!! LOL!!:lick:

EDIT: Eve Online is under like 125K subs, but DOES offer full on PvP, as well, from what I have read. I would be remiss to leave it out. It has been out years, though, and it's subscriptions are the highest they have ever been, from what I can tell. It draws people...just not LOTS of people.

Anyway...I digress.

What you wrote is exactly correct, Dermott:thumbsup:, although I am certain that further down the page we will likely see someone that will claim it's just not true...it most certainly is. Most certainly.

PvP is thrilling.

Completely Non-Con PvP just ain't a big seller.:next:

Sarphus

07-21-2008, 08:20 AM

I didn't read his post word for word. I don't have time to do that. I glanced over the thread to see the overall tone and felt he was grossly exagurating in probably the most wordy way he could.

I rarely will read a post that would print out on about 3 pages... When I will, the post it's because the post is written concisely and actually has 3 pages worth of stuff to say.

This one doesn't. It's more of the "rambly" variety and the fact that UO had > 200k subscribers at one point in time (regardless of where the subscriptions came from) is a fact. Disputing that fact is what I am refering to as exaguration.

in direct respose to your comments about UO never being as simple as click n' stick/run and heal; I was speaking from a pvm standpoint, and UO was that simple from a pvm standpoint. I agree that you had to try to predict where your foe was running when pvping on a dexer. I should have been more clear. The point I was trying to make was that I like the complexities that have been added to the combat system.

Traveller

07-21-2008, 09:02 AM

EDIT: Eve Online is under like 125K subs, but DOES offer full on PvP, as well, from what I have read. I would be remiss to leave it out. It has been out years, though, and it's subscriptions are the highest they have ever been, from what I can tell.

How old your information are? It is close to 250K (UO's peak). As you say, it is currently the highest it has ever been: after 5 years it shows no sign of peaking or decline.

RenaLynne

07-21-2008, 09:20 AM

Blah, blah, blah...:sleep2:

Trebr Drab

07-21-2008, 09:23 AM

Thought I'd throw in my thoughts here, even though I've said this many times over the years and rarely get any support.

Fel was dying, and eventually would have ended up very similarly to what we see in Fel now. The problem was rampant PKing, of course. Anyone who denies this is closing their minds to what the old GMs have said many times. Subscriptions were being lost at an alarming rate due to PKing.

Trammel came along, and it was the start to total protection for players as insurance followed suit. This allowed players to go it alone and put the screws to social developments. It also made the game easy and boring.

Since then, an assortment of ideas implemented to add excitement have done so, but brought new problems in balance, and thus cheating.

Balance! Anyone remember how that used to be an important part of game development? If you're curious about how important it is to a game like UO read this post by EnigmaMaitreya, which was moved to "Off Topic" and should have been stickied instead.
http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?t=90518
This is science, and philosophy. And it's not new. The ancient Greeks knew this and built their society on it. Many ancient philosophers new this and wrote books about it. Many free nations built their societies on it, taking cues from the past.
In it is explained the answer to social gaming of all kinds. You need balance among the players if you want cooperative social interaction. Most games these days don't care about this, as they promote level grinds and that single player atmosphere played with a select group of friends. And this is where UO went with AoS, and it sucks for them as much as it does for all the other games.

How does it suck? Guilds don't stay together, or grow, except for the top "end game" style of guilds, which always end up smallish again, or large and controlled by gold farmers. Anti social both, as they have few dealings outside of their groups except to sell for gold. Or sell for Real cash.
Furthermore, you see much less of the planned or impromptu social gatherings open to gamers. UO used to be filled with these, now it's a transparent ghost of what it used to be, mostly promoted by a few hold-overs from those glory days of great social gaming that UO was. And what else is left in game play is being controlled by cheaters, because it is unbalanced.

So, if Felucca wasn't working, and if Trammel isn't working, does it not occure to anyone besides me and a few others counted on a couple of hands, that somewhere in the middle lies the answer?

It is exactly right that AoS should not have made such a drastic change, adding numbers for calculators and power for lust. It is exactly right that UO should have moved sideways with new items, adding more abilities and interest to the game, expanding the game in breadth instead of tier.

UO had installed a player justice system to reduce PKing, and to give victims a feeling that there is justice in Sosaria. But they allowed two things:
1) Blues could heal reds and not get a criminal flag
2) Thieves could steal, then kill anyone who attacked them, and not be a murderer.
These two issues allowed "criminal" behavior to prosper, and ruined the effort for player justice. Instead of fixing it, because they think of predator players as "just gamers", they gave up and came out with Trammel.

The rest is history, and we have this game of poor social interaction and high scale cheating and Real Money Trade (RMT).

Connor_Graham

07-21-2008, 09:36 AM

It is exactly right that AoS should not have made such a drastic change, adding numbers for calculators and power for lust.

Uh, where do I get the armor or weapon that gives me the Power for Lust?

I'll start the bidding at 100mil.....:D

Extra Value Meal

07-21-2008, 09:42 AM

This entire post is a waste of time. UO has been around nearly 11 yrs now and is still here, and still kicking. If it had been "ruined" it would have been shut down years ago. "Some" people may not like how it's turned out, but since UO is still here for them to complain about on a daily basis, someone must be doing something right.

*goes back to farming for turn in points*
You can say the same thing about Star Wars Galaxies. It is agreed upon by the majority of its playerbase that the NGE upgrade was the biggest step backwards ever. Several media sources such as The New York Times, New York Post, CBS and Wired criticized it for its reduced depth and complexity. Players left in droves because of it, making it one of the biggest player departures in MMO history.

The game is still available to play though. Does that mean the Devs did something right?

Trebr Drab

07-21-2008, 09:48 AM

Uh, where do I get the armor or weapon that gives me the Power for Lust?

I'll start the bidding at 100mil.....:D

You like the game just the way it is, don't you Connor.
UO is dying. The only new subs are from RMT. The players are trickling towards the exit door.

Connor_Graham

07-21-2008, 09:53 AM

You can say the same thing about Star Wars Galaxies. It is agreed upon by the majority of its playerbase that the NGE upgrade was the biggest step backwards ever. Several media sources such as The New York Times, New York Post, CBS and Wired criticized it for its reduced depth and complexity. Players left in droves because of it, making it one of the biggest player departures in MMO history.

The game is still available to play though. Does that mean the Devs did something right?

As players didn't leave in droves at any given point other than the period prior to the implementation of Trammel, I'd have to say UO Devs have done something right. I've never played, nor even looked at SWG, so can't say anything about it.

Connor_Graham

07-21-2008, 09:58 AM

You like the game just the way it is, don't you Connor.

As they say here in Texas....Eyup....I shore doo.

UO is dying. The only new subs are from RMT. The players are trickling towards the exit door.

Prior to the recent influx of [young] players due to the latest quest, I saw [young] players just about every day. We've been hearing "The Sky Is Falling" since the beginning of UO. Now is no different than then. Hell, if I'd played UO prior to there being an option for consentual PvP, I would have been one of the ones that quit before Tram came about.

Trebr Drab

07-21-2008, 10:02 AM

Extra Value Meal

07-21-2008, 10:05 AM

As players didn't leave in droves at any given point other than the period prior to the implementation of Trammel, I'd have to say UO Devs have done something right. I've never played, nor even looked at SWG, so can't say anything about it.
Well I'm not sure how credible MMOGChart is so please take this information with a grain of salt.

According to this chart (http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html), UO was receiving a respectable increase in Subs before, during and after 2000 when Renaissance hit the scene. Then after 2003, numbers began to drop at a rapid pace.

So I'd say that the "players leaving in droves" bit is most accurate after AOS. Again, as I stated in my OP and repeated in subsequent posts several times after, Trammel was good for the game's longevity, but hurt player communities. That's all really. My deep disappointment lies with AoS. Nothing more. If you like the game in its current form, that's great and fine by me. I didn't write this post to call for change or backwards development. The only reason why I wrote this was to foster a discussion while injecting my own opinion into the debate which I don't usually do.

I hold no ill will towards those who applaud and support AoS. What's done is done and whether or not I disagree with what happened is irrelevant. Things won't go back to the way they used to. But it's always nice to discuss.

Connor_Graham

07-21-2008, 10:10 AM

And UO's numbers have been slowly declining since AoS, from 250K to around 75K. Lower even than what it was before Trammel.
But Connor Graham is ok with this just the way it is.

You're forgetting to take into account that now we're dealing with an entire new generation of gamers with a whole slew of new generation games.

That wasn't the case 10 yrs ago. The Pepsi generation is what started with UO and currently makes up the majority of the playerbase. Generation X is playing games like WoW. The current playerbase won't accept the changes that would be necessary to bring UO up to par with Gen X games. Even if KR had been flawless when it was rolled out the majority of the 2D'rs would never have thought twice about rejecting it because it doesn't have the "feel" of UO.

So, we have what we have, and what we have obviously still works.

Stigmatas

07-21-2008, 10:43 AM

I also think that the "risk vs reward" pardigm is flawed. A sandbox may need the dark corner with scorpions and fire ants, but it needs other things otherwise it degenerates. Shadowbane had dropping numbers despite giving players risk and risk-based community. I was part of a player town in those risk-filled days, and I can tell you, the community suffered a good deal because of PKs. I continued to run events in Felucca until I finally got so fed up with having events disrupted or ruined. I may talk about those sentimental early days, but I also remember there were things that made me furious. I also wasn't part of a town because "risk" forced me to band together, but because I generally liked the people I was hanging out with. I would probably have found a similar group even if there hadn't been people trying to kill me.

Somebody.....who gets it.

Risk and player killing does not equal community. Admit it, it was all about the jollies of griefing someone.

RavenWinterHawk

07-21-2008, 11:34 AM

Somebody.....who gets it.

Risk and player killing does not equal community. Admit it, it was all about the jollies of griefing someone.

Nah,
Risk is the adrenalin rush.

When a red would recall into T2A as you were killing the liches... Youd gear for battle.

The risk was death and loss.

The really is none know. None. Its a candy game.

Luckily there is tons of other stuff to do that entertains me.

And for community, candied down to repair deeds, soulstones, 7 slots.

So the problem. UO got to sweet.

An easy fix... listen to what worked. Keep all the lands as is. Create a new world. One that needs community, has consequences and random rewards.

Landicine

07-21-2008, 01:33 PM

1. Depth.

This word has been thrown around a lot. Apparently, this means no seeing the numbers, but instead seeing words. Ruin or Damage Increase 5%. Idestructible or Durability +50%.

I don't think Ultima lost any depth over the years. Magery still has 64 spells. Swords still has a ton of different weapons, all of which now have special moves.

It gained transparancy for its items, but that's about it. I know I'm in the minority, but I think the magic item system was an improvement. I enjoy tinkering with random armor sets, trying to find interesting interactions. Yesterday, it was a magic shortbow special with a hit area. People focus too much on the power aspect of the newer system, rather than looking at the fact that before AoS, it was a magic item system with very few properties.

Housing is another system that has a lot more depth than the 10 or so designs that were available. Boats have remained the same. Many of the systems have lost their mystery over time, not because of the dev team, but because players figured them out!

2. Consequences

There are still consequences for being mediocre at this game. In the old days, it was someone taking all your stuff and laughing over your corpse. Now, it is falling further and further behind in terms of wealth, prestige, skill, etc. Ultima has in many ways became a constant game of "Keeping up with the Joneses." Stop playing for a few years, and suddenly you will have missed your chance at super item X, decoration Y, and title Z.

3. Community

I still play that item game from time to time, but I usually play another "game" in UO I enjoy more. I really enjoy roleplaying with other players. It gives a reason to everything I do in game from training new characters (old characters in stories need to die), crafting (plot important items), pvp (can't play evil without some combat), and so on. The roleplayers of LS along with some of the other community people there are the reason I'm still playing.

You can't force a community with a sword or e-bolt. Look at history. The Constitutional Convention is as important to the current United States as the Revolutionary War. Heck, a Civil War almost tore it apart. Communities can be formed by things other than pk raids.

Mulch

07-21-2008, 03:22 PM

FrejaSP

07-22-2008, 01:35 AM

Prior to the recent influx of [young] players due to the latest quest, I saw [young] players just about every day. We've been hearing "The Sky Is Falling" since the beginning of UO.

Yes you see young players but do you also see them grow up?

Now is no different than then. Hell, if I'd played UO prior to there being an option for consentual PvP, I would have been one of the ones that quit before Tram came about.

Don't be to sure of that, I could say, had I not started in 1997 with dangers on each corner and lots of reds wanting to interact with me, I fear I would had ended up as a trammy, to scared to set my feets i Felucca and would never had been choosing Siege as my home.

I joined the game because my som showed me, that I could make a char do crafting stuff. He sure not expected me to end up as red and I did not know about PvP. I did however read the manuel and accepted reds and thieves as a part of the game, just like monsters.

I'm so happy I did not grow up in Trammel and miss, what for me had been the best part of the game.

Traveller

07-22-2008, 01:38 AM

As players didn't leave in droves at any given point other than the period prior to the implementation of Trammel, I'd have to say UO Devs have done something right. I've never played, nor even looked at SWG, so can't say anything about it.

I suppose that entire guilds of beta-veterans leaving en-masse two months after AoS release doesn't qualify as "players leaving in droves" in your considerate opinion.

Face it connor, the fact stand that the game was slowly declining before AoS, peaked with the AoS release and started declining since two months after AoS release and never stopped going down.

I don't know if renaissance was good or bad for the game (and nobody really does despite the fact that everybody here shoves his own opinion as facts), but having been here before and after AoS it seems pretty straightforward to me that AoS killed most of the depth this game had.

Just a small example, but very representative. Do you know JoAT "introduced" with mondain legacy? Before AoS we used to have it on any character, with a much better implementation (i.e. the effective skill boost to skill values was connected to your stats, and would slowly decrease with an increase in the real skill). Then after two years EA had the nerve to ask us to pay for an "expansion" that would reintroduce a two years old dynamic, with a much worse implementation than we originally had.

Anyway, you are having fun with the game as it is? Good, go for it, and pay for it. Just don't expect me and many other people who paid for it to continue to pay to support your fun.

Salty Pete

07-22-2008, 02:28 AM

As players didn't leave in droves at any given point other than the period prior to the implementation of Trammel, I'd have to say UO Devs have done something right. I've never played, nor even looked at SWG, so can't say anything about it.

Players left in droves with AoS. Most of the folks I played with on Sonoma for instance left at the same time I did. A few stayed, the kind of people who enjoyed collecting and casual PvM mainly. When I tried a free trial in 2005 I was horrified to find a shard filled with scripters and other play for $ pay types instead of the friendly supportive event creating community that existed prior to when I left. There were pockets of hold outs, but the majority had left.

One thing has helped bring a few of us back to UO though... The popularity of WoW. New MMOs are almost always built to that level treadmill, rigid class, Diablo 2 style game.

It would be great if the Devs started rebuilding some of UO's character diversity instead of thinking level/class/item.

Connor_Graham

07-22-2008, 06:07 AM

Don't be to sure of that, I could say, had I not started in 1997 with dangers on each corner and lots of reds wanting to interact with me, I fear I would had ended up as a trammy, to scared to set my feets i Felucca and would never had been choosing Siege as my home.

I can be sure of it. I've tried UO's PvP and found that I didn't like it at all. If I'd played when there was no option NOT to participate in it, then I wouldn't have stayed with the game.

Landicine

07-22-2008, 06:24 AM

Losing depth of a game cannot be simplified in UO on the showing of Numbers.

But the game certainly eliminated or simplified playstyles.
While the pvp and pve skills improved the basic of pvp/pve stays the same.
Thiwving, crafting, harvesting all underwent major changes and many resulted in loss of ingame depth.
Yes, it got harder to get a runic kit, to steal a level 10 rare, to find ore, but all that changes don't mean more depth as hard is not depth.

Uo should consider implementing systems again which build upon another and enhance or add playstyles again.

You may be right on stealing. Doom stealables is hardly that impressive.

You are wrong on crafting. I had tailoring for years before AoS (smithing came with AoS, but I know smiths). Originally, there was no runics. There were no special hides, wood, or ingots. There wasn't even exceptional. The best a smith or tailor could make what a weapon as good as one from an NPC vendor. With silver vanguishing accurate indestructible swords, no one really wanted to buy leather armor. I used it to reequip after I died to a pk. Crafting was basically a way to turn iron ingots and hides into quick cash (by quick, I mean you made a lot of stuff and sold it to a provisioner 5 items at a time for a few hundred gold maybe). Crafting has gained a lot of depth over the years with recipes, runics, special materials, craftable artifacts, arms lore bonus, enhancement, etc.

Harvesting used to be a way to gain strength (when gaining strength was a lot harder than it is now). My first character over 10 years ago hit the side of a mountain for strength gains and a few iron ingots. Just iron. No special colors. I may not like the randomized ore spots since it 1) favors scripters and 2) doesn't encourage miners to explore mine, but I don't think it is a matter of depth.

As for PvP and PvM templates, that is a problem with balance. People tend to pick the most powerful templates, and this tends to result in pretty homogenous group. Some of my less used alts are strange templates, and they can't really do as much as others. This has nothing to do with depth, but more to do with balancing power between the skills. Look at the utility of the various skills. Magery is a million times more useful than Forensic evaluation. Chivalry is better than Taste ID. Never in UO's history did people GM Taste ID or Forensic Evaluation for serious use (mostly people GMed it in case it ever became good).

Mulch

07-22-2008, 07:05 AM

Limlight

07-22-2008, 07:06 AM

Llewen

07-22-2008, 07:45 AM

I appreciate the overwrought, dramatic, pseudo-intellectual eloquence with which you delivered the now-standard "Trammel Ruined UO" argument that we've heard, literally, thousands of times before from dozens of different posters.

The sad thing is that I'm so tired of refuting it that it's getting tempting to just let it win.

The reality is that "community" was a scarce and dangerous thing before Felucca. What RP existed and what player-run towns existed were under constant assault by vastly superior numbers.

Anti-PKs faced as much resentment as gratitude from the populace ("you're just making it worse!!" was a common, sad mantra).

*shrugs* Deny it if you want....On the boards, there's more of you than there are of me...Of course, in the actual game, paying subscriptions, you are a distinct minority.

All I can really do is hope that Mythic looks a subscriptions, and not boards.

These arguments have a lot less to do with reality than with romance.

-Galen's player

Well said. I was here in 97, I remember the game back then. It was great fun, but it was also incredibly frustrating. It did have something special, because it was dangerous and unpredictable, but the thing that was most special about it was that it was the first of it's kind, and utterly unique.

For most of us gamers UO was our "first time" mmorpg, and we will never ever have an experience like that again. You could revert UO completely to the way it was back then, and you would soon discover how much better the game is now than it was then, and it would never get back that certain special something that it had back then, because it was the first of it's kind.

As a pure game goes, UO is a much more interesting, varied, and challenging game than it was back then. I still think that UO is the best MMORPG ever created, when it comes to depth of game play, and diversity of every kind.

I don't think UO is dying, but I do think it could be doing better than it is currently doing, and here are what I think could be improved on, in terms of increasing the client base, and none of them have to do with going back to a pre-Renaissance, or pre-AoS world order.

1. Clean up the cheating. Either implement Punk Buster, or something similar to it and clean the game up. It is a complete mess with regard to cheating right now and has been for a very long time.

2. Polish the KR client and get it up to production quality. The KR client would be a good client, if it was working properly. It is decent as it stands, but it needs some fixing. The KR client is essential to attracting new players. New players will want to play on a modern client, and the KR client is definitely the way to go for new players.

3. Make the Stygian Abyss expansion release a well planned commercial assault. Put a product on the shelves to be sold in game stores, and do some serious advertising. I'm not talking multi-million dollar advertising slots during the Super Bowl, but some well thought out advertising on gaming websites, and in gaming magazines.

Ultima Online is a good game, and I like the current development team. I think that UO will be around for a long time to come, and could continue to do very well for a long time to come, if what I have listed happens. I should also say that I think all of those three things are going to be done, although I am somewhat pessimistic about 1, I'm just about certain that 2 and 3 are already in the works.

Esmeralda

07-22-2008, 09:57 AM

@the OP

It´s so sad.. but true!
Altho what additionally made me love uo were the events cause they were held by real persons (aka. event moderators).

RavenWinterHawk

07-22-2008, 11:15 AM

1. I loved/love this game.

2. Trammel was actually good for UO. AOS was good for UO.
Insurance killed UO.

If no insurance existed and if you could still loot bodies went they went to bones then the game might have more flavor.

Who doesnt remember waiting for that Elite dude in Deciet to die to Lichs with his Silver Vanq...hoping he wouldnt get back in time for his body?

Exactly.
Everyone argues do you want to lose all your stuff?
YES.
All my stuff on my body.
NOT THE STUFF in my house.
NOT THE STUFF on my vendors.
NOT THE STUFF in my bank box.

I have gold. Ill buy more.

I want to potentially lose the stuff on my corpse when I am killed.
Okay. Sure give me reason. Im not going to go to fel and just get killed. Give me a land worth exploring with random rewards and random monsters and stuff. Ill go. Dressed in my bronze runic hammer suit. With a basic weapon.

I kills me that people think this is bad. Bad to die and lose out.

Yes, I want Fel, Trammel, Ilsh and Malas. As is.
Different ways to potentially lose my stuff.

REMEMBER you STILL can lose your stuff that nots insured, in any land.

Last week going to get poison sacs, I got killed. With my blacksmith. 7 deaths later. Still couldnt get to my body. To weak. My body boned.

I logged out. Well I had to wait for my characture to time out before I could bring in my mage to clear the area.

POINT. DIED. BODY DECAYED. Was in minutes of losing my corpse. But I got it back.

I hope to GAME GOD that the DEVS bring back looting, killing, and other stuff I wrote about in other posts. Keep the lands as is. Create the lawless land.

PvP will still occur.
PvM will still occur.
Just in that land it will be different.

FrejaSP

07-22-2008, 11:35 AM

*Hit Connor_Graham with a Troll Slayer* :danceb:

Connor_Graham

07-22-2008, 11:58 AM

*Hit Connor_Graham with a Troll Slayer* :danceb:

Since I'm not the one trolling, it has no affect on me. Now if you were to use it on the right person, then it would work on them.:thumbsup:

Landicine

07-22-2008, 12:57 PM

You are going a bit too far back. I meant pre AOS when coloured leather already existed and coloured ingots.
The developers enhanced crafting over the years bit by bit, but with AOS they took things in a totally new direction.
I would have preferred if crafters could have specialized in their crafting instead of relying on BODS and RNG to craft.

It must be possible to balance skillbased games as Guild wars seems to do it (though I have not really tried it yet), just EA never really tried it.

I think going all the way back is important. People talk about the good old days when for some of us, they are talking about the decent middling days. Originally, special ingots didn't add bonus to armor, so I could use regular metal exceptional or exceptional valorite and get the same protection. My favorite set was actually a mix of regular chain and shadow iron.

My crafters are pretty specialized these days. A lot more than in days back. My original character was a warrior with tailoring, used to run into a dungeon in a goat helm, death robe, and practice sword, and kill mongbats to make better armor. Then I would either run the meat back to the butchers or get pked and start the process over. Every dungeon run where you didn't say OoOooo, you felt like king of the world.

Runics also existed before AoS. They just made the same bloody weapon each time. They would always add the same mods to the sword and always required use of the same metal the runic was. At the time, they were the best weapons. Powerscrolls and these strong runic weapons where the first real "items" that were needed for serious competitive play. I think it is amusing that powerscrolls which are basically expensive permanent items are usually ignored when people complain about items.

I enjoy crafting. I loot a lot of armor and weapons I don't need to play around with enhancement. I think with magic weapons and armor, there would either have to be an item like runics or a skill involved with adding magic to items or rare resources. I don't like rare resources since they mean that crafters need combat characters to help them collect them. A skill would probably mean a lot more items which would hurt crafters (spellbooks from inscription require no special materials or runics and very few of them sell for more than 1k, maybe 5k if it has all 64 spells).