Originally posted by mCalvert Originally posted by MavekOriginally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
There are so few Hardcore players - IF you want to have a failed game then do EXACTLY as you propose. The idea is to bring as MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE - not cater to the wicked few.
Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.
If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?
I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.
It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.
And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.
Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.
Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.
See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.
He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.
No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?
As to the OP:
FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard Originally posted by Holophonist
Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.
If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?
I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.
It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.
And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.
Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.
Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.
See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.
He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.
No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?
As to the OP:
FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.
He in fact did not respond to the trammel part of my post. Look, what was trammel supposed to do? Get a temporary boost before slowly dying? Or was it supposed to breathe new life into the game? Pointing out that the peak came after trammel is a dishonest and purposefully shallow way to say that trammel didnt kill UO. If you think that trammel was meant to temporarily boost subs, it succeeded. If you think it was supposed to save the game, it failed.
Enter the doctor analogy. So far I have 2 people saying it doesnt make sense, but nobody saying why. But hey that's how people on the internet argue. The analogy is meant to explain why trammel was a failure. They chose to implement trammel INSTEAD of other possible options that may have worked. How does my analogy not explain that?
Here's the thing, if you want PvP go over to the site, fund the project to a level where you get to put your 5 cents in, and then do so. If you're just going to sit on here and scream about it and say it will fail while people are already throwing money at them, then you might need to rethink your priorities. I mean, if you want full loot pvp maybe you would like to look at Star Citizen, they already said that game will have it. Now Lord British and Roberts are always a talking, I know there are already cross over items, and I wouldn't be shocked if some type of play style ideas overlapped.
I'm pretty sure if you try to gank someone in a town on SoTA that tessla tower is going to light you up, in the wild you might get away with it. Still, the issue is, with crowd funded games, you need to put your money where your mouth is or sit down and shut up. If your not pledging and helping to pay for the title then your opinion does not matter over those that are.
Simply put, if five thousand people pay money into the game and say they want PvE and five thousand people don't give them a dime and demand PvP, then the PvPers are going to have to go have a bit of a cry. Crowd Funding is supposed to work that way, the people can make the game they want by getting the support of the players, not some big company that says demographics want this, you do this.
Originally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
There are so few Hardcore players - IF you want to have a failed game then do EXACTLY as you propose. The idea is to bring as MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE - not cater to the wicked few.
EVE has over 40,000 players logged in any any given time, paying a subscription. THey have a couple hundred thousand accounts. Most game would love to have that. There are MANY hardcore players.
Originally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
Originally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
The flaw with your reasoning is that -
how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
I don't see how that's a flaw given youre agreeing with me.
Originally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
The flaw with your reasoning is that -
how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
I don't see how that's a flaw given youre agreeing with me.
Just wondering if you guys have heard of The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) Portalarium devs have come up with?
There is a lot of discussion about crime, PvP, PK, grief, flagging, criminals, justice, and so on. Why? I think it is slightly pointless and only serves as a distraction, and here is why.
If you don't already know, PvP will be optional, and that option is controlled directly via The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). That means you must actually choose to enter into a game mode with The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). Not only that, but when you do enter that PvP game mode The magichandshakesliderbarthingy(TM) will then prevent all players who have not optionally selected a hardcore male non-nub game mode from interacting with your game instance itself.
It really is quite simple.
So if all PvP is optional, then all laws should be thrown out the window. There is simply no need. Let us hardcore players have our fun in the dog eat dog world of chaos while people who don't want PvP are happily chopping down trees somewhere far far away.
But allow them to visit from time to time... Once they see the beauty we create, I am sure they will be more interested in staying than in leaving :P
I would actually love game companies who design multiplayer role playing games to include features that are specific for the game's design and story. If the game is designed around conflict then sure, make the whoel game about pvp. If the game is very storybased then focus on those features. If a game is designed around living in a world and making a living, then include crafting. As now, every game throws in everything because they believe that its not a massive multiplayer role playing game if it doesnt have these things.
Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by mCalvertOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by mCalvertOriginally posted by MavekOriginally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers. There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
UO had to switch over to a mostly PvE game in order to survive. It's the best example of what you're talking about, and it's not a very good example of what you're talking about.
Developers do not create markets. The markets either exist or they don't and developers are capable of taking advantage of that market. There are games for that market, they just aren't taking off. Not the way early MMORPGs took off. If the market was there, if it could support a AAA game, then the games made for that market would have taken off much more than they did. The market is too small and game development is too expensive for it to work.
Richard Garriott, more than anyone is aware of this. He was there when Trammell was released and he knows, better than anyone else, how the players responded to that change. This is why players can choose how they play in SotA.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by KomandorThe only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
UO had to switch over to a mostly PvE game in order to survive. It's the best example of what you're talking about, and it's not a very good example of what you're talking about.
Developers do not create markets. The markets either exist or they don't and developers are capable of taking advantage of that market. There are games for that market, they just aren't taking off. Not the way early MMORPGs took off. If the market was there, if it could support a AAA game, then the games made for that market would have taken off much more than they did. The market is too small and game development is too expensive for it to work.
Richard Garriott, more than anyone is aware of this. He was there when Trammell was released and he knows, better than anyone else, how the players responded to that change. This is why players can choose how they play in SotA.
Y'all know that Portalarium is not a AAA company right? Facts are something we all need to git learnt'.
I think the fact that SotA is going to let you choose a bit more about how your play is freaking awesome. I have played STO, I have played LOTRO, I have played NWO, I have played BSGO, I've played every MMO basically since Ultima Online. They either nerf PvP all together or you don't get a choice. People without a choice freak out and can't deal, at least here with SotA you may get some of those nubs choosing to go hardcore PvP and actually enjoy it because it is their choice. Don't forget how powerful the illusion of choice is. It is used on us every day.
If all the people dumping their money on in game property equates to me getting a better PvP engine, HELL YEAH, keep buying those houses you little wallet warriors.
it will not function like darkfall for the reason there are much more games out there then at uo times .
and much more players that behave like douchebags.And trader and rp players doesnt need to join the pvp guys anymore they take another game where they dont get disturbed every 5 min think what you will but open world pvp days are long time over.
Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history."
This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.
I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it.
Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing).
------------------------- "Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history."
This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.
I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it.
Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing).
Agree to the fullest.
Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.
Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.
Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by Darkholme Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history." This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it. Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing).
Agree to the fullest.
Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.
Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.
So posts like this one, from 2002 were insane ravings?
From Game-Master.Net Here is my question for you:Trammel is full, Felucca is empty How do we bring balance to the two facets while at the same time keeping the Trammies happy? (happy trammies == happy OSI).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by InsaneDalek Yes, because as everyone knows when UO added Trammel it was such a huge fai- OH WAIT.
It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!
UO's sub base peaked at 250,00 subs in July 2003... 3 years after Trammel came out. Get your facts straight.
250,000 subs would be considered barely ok today, a niche game. Probably no other full loot game has even that many subs.
Any developer making a full loot game has to realize that the player base is small for that kind of game.
How can you say that player base for Alpha Hardcore game is low, when nobody has tried it. Darkfall failed, because of lousy execution. Mortal Online failed due to programming faults and lag. If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit]
Always some other excuse for why so many PvP MMOs fail, but never due to PvP itself. Grow up.
The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
Do you realize that Ultima Online was losing subscribers before the introduction of Trammel?
It was Trammel that saved the game and made it even more of a success.
Ultima Online didn't peak until 2 YEARS AFTER TRAMMEL. The population almost doubled because of Trammel.
I know it is because of Trammel, because the game was losing a ton of subscribers due to the griefing. I remember reading about the dev's decisions to introduce Trammel, how the majority of players loved it, and the dev talking about how it stopped the dramatic loss of subs and reversed it to a very large gain in subscribers.
There is a difference between, "If this game doesn't have FFA PvP, it will fail and go bankrupt." and "If this game doesn't have FFA PvP, I personally will not like it."
The latter is true, but the former is the opposite of true.
UO did not do better after introduction of Trammel. Trammel killed UO. Carebears don't count anyway.
Do you like to put fingers into your ears, close your eyes and go "LALALALALALAL CAN'T HEAR YOU!" in the real life, too?
Trammel is full, Felucca is empty… How do we bring balance to the two facets while at the same time keeping the Trammies happy? (happy trammies == happy OSI).
Just because Felucca was emptying doesn't mean the game was dying... it just means exactly what I said. People didn't enjoy being ganked and griefed constantly so they migrated to Trammel when Renaissance launched and never went back in the same numbers. That does not correlate with the game losing subscribers however, and in fact if you look at the numbers, the opposite happened. No amount of attempts at revisionist gaming history is ever going to change that.
------------------------- "Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Originally posted by Darkholme Originally posted by lizardbones So posts like this one, from 2002 were insane ravings? How to bring back Felucca?From Game-Master.NetHere is my question for you: Trammel is full, Felucca is empty How do we bring balance to the two facets while at the same time keeping the Trammies happy? (happy trammies == happy OSI).
Just because Felucca was emptying doesn't mean the game was dying... it just means exactly what I said. People didn't enjoy being ganked and griefed constantly so they migrated to Trammel when Renaissance launched and never went back in the same numbers. That does not correlate with the game losing subscribers however, and in fact if you look at the numbers, the opposite happened. No amount of attempts at revisionist gaming history is ever going to change that.
Are you responding to me? I was showing historical evidence that Felucca emptied out as soon as the players had someplace else to go. As you said, this was because they were tired of the PvP. There's also historical evidence that UO pulled in another 100k players or so after the release of Trammel so Trammel didn't "kill UO". Trammel just killed Felucca. Which is kind of ironic.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
Your way or the highway right? Why aren't all you hardcore players playing Eve? I get a kick out of these kind of post. Game companies want to make money. Your type of game fails at that. But you do have Eve. Although Eve been around for more than 10 years and has never broke 500k subs. Be thankful that CCP is a small company and its one game is still around. I do wish someone would have the guts to make the game you guys want. Then we would see less post like this or maybe not. You guys seem to get bored of the game after 2 or 3 months and start posting again.
Originally posted by Darth-Batman Because Darkfall is a shining example of a success story? All those open-world-pvp-full-loot games have something in common, they all struggle.
Note he said "A better Darkfall". But yes, Darkfall is a pretty great success story. As is Eve.
People seem to have this delusion that Darkfall is doing poorly.
A group of 12 devs on a 1 million dollar budget released an MMO that is technologically superior to many on the market, handling real time combat in a non zoned non instanced world with hundreds of players.
Fast forward 3 years later and the team has grown to 30 devs, moved into a larger office building, opened a second server, released its third expansion.
Fast forward to present day, team is up to 60 full time devs, move to yet a bigger office, released a sequel/massive overhaul to the game, have boxes in stores, about to release to a whole new sector of the globe. And its still a sub based game.
Darkfall isn't a success story? Compared to what? Compared to games like SWTOR where the dev team gets cut by 4/5 after launch, where company stocks drop, where the founders ditch the company, where the game is forced to go FTP? Compared to Rift, the most successful modern themepark (WoW clone) where it has merged servers and fired devs over the last two years?
Compare it all to Eve, a game STILL GROWING in population over 11 years later, now the most subscribed to MMO outside of WoW.
Well designed niche games are the success stories of the MMO genre, they always have been. The only outlier has been WoW.
Now, on topic, this game isn't even really an MMO. The world can be played singleplayer, the entire thing is instanced more or less. It's certainly no UO.
Originally posted by InsaneDalek Yes, because as everyone knows when UO added Trammel it was such a huge fai- OH WAIT.
It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!
UO's sub base peaked at 250,00 subs in July 2003... 3 years after Trammel came out. Get your facts straight.
250,000 subs would be considered barely ok today, a niche game. Probably no other full loot game has even that many subs.
Any developer making a full loot game has to realize that the player base is small for that kind of game.
How can you say that player base for Alpha Hardcore game is low, when nobody has tried it. Darkfall failed, because of lousy execution. Mortal Online failed due to programming faults and lag. If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit]
Always some other excuse for why so many PvP MMOs fail, but never due to PvP itself. Grow up.
What was immature about what he said? He is right. Darkfall was poorly executed with an untrustworthy studio behind it. Mortal OL fared far worse. EVE does pretty well considering how niche the entire game is. Open PVP, harsh penalties, as well as a space sim wrapping. All of those things are severely niche in and of themselves. Yet good game design and execution have gone a long way to building a lasting community.
PVP has quite a following, what it lacks is one major game that fits it's core desires per capita. What I mean by that is, one game that speaks to the multiple types of PVP oriented players and guilds out there. There are many of these for the PVE oriented player.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
There are so few Hardcore players - IF you want to have a failed game then do EXACTLY as you propose. The idea is to bring as MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE - not cater to the wicked few.
He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.
No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?
As to the OP:
FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.
If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?
It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.
And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.
Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.
Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.
He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.
No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?
As to the OP:
FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.
He in fact did not respond to the trammel part of my post. Look, what was trammel supposed to do? Get a temporary boost before slowly dying? Or was it supposed to breathe new life into the game? Pointing out that the peak came after trammel is a dishonest and purposefully shallow way to say that trammel didnt kill UO. If you think that trammel was meant to temporarily boost subs, it succeeded. If you think it was supposed to save the game, it failed.Enter the doctor analogy. So far I have 2 people saying it doesnt make sense, but nobody saying why. But hey that's how people on the internet argue. The analogy is meant to explain why trammel was a failure. They chose to implement trammel INSTEAD of other possible options that may have worked. How does my analogy not explain that?
Here's the thing, if you want PvP go over to the site, fund the project to a level where you get to put your 5 cents in, and then do so. If you're just going to sit on here and scream about it and say it will fail while people are already throwing money at them, then you might need to rethink your priorities. I mean, if you want full loot pvp maybe you would like to look at Star Citizen, they already said that game will have it. Now Lord British and Roberts are always a talking, I know there are already cross over items, and I wouldn't be shocked if some type of play style ideas overlapped.
I'm pretty sure if you try to gank someone in a town on SoTA that tessla tower is going to light you up, in the wild you might get away with it. Still, the issue is, with crowd funded games, you need to put your money where your mouth is or sit down and shut up. If your not pledging and helping to pay for the title then your opinion does not matter over those that are.
Simply put, if five thousand people pay money into the game and say they want PvE and five thousand people don't give them a dime and demand PvP, then the PvPers are going to have to go have a bit of a cry. Crowd Funding is supposed to work that way, the people can make the game they want by getting the support of the players, not some big company that says demographics want this, you do this.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
EVE has over 40,000 players logged in any any given time, paying a subscription. THey have a couple hundred thousand accounts. Most game would love to have that. There are MANY hardcore players.
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
I don't see how that's a flaw given youre agreeing with me.
Agree, edited it.
Just wondering if you guys have heard of The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) Portalarium devs have come up with?
There is a lot of discussion about crime, PvP, PK, grief, flagging, criminals, justice, and so on. Why? I think it is slightly pointless and only serves as a distraction, and here is why.
If you don't already know, PvP will be optional, and that option is controlled directly via The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). That means you must actually choose to enter into a game mode with The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). Not only that, but when you do enter that PvP game mode The magichandshakesliderbarthingy(TM) will then prevent all players who have not optionally selected a hardcore male non-nub game mode from interacting with your game instance itself.
It really is quite simple.
So if all PvP is optional, then all laws should be thrown out the window. There is simply no need. Let us hardcore players have our fun in the dog eat dog world of chaos while people who don't want PvP are happily chopping down trees somewhere far far away.
But allow them to visit from time to time... Once they see the beauty we create, I am sure they will be more interested in staying than in leaving :P
Peace.
http://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?
Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.
I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.
UO had to switch over to a mostly PvE game in order to survive. It's the best example of what you're talking about, and it's not a very good example of what you're talking about.
Developers do not create markets. The markets either exist or they don't and developers are capable of taking advantage of that market. There are games for that market, they just aren't taking off. Not the way early MMORPGs took off. If the market was there, if it could support a AAA game, then the games made for that market would have taken off much more than they did. The market is too small and game development is too expensive for it to work.
Richard Garriott, more than anyone is aware of this. He was there when Trammell was released and he knows, better than anyone else, how the players responded to that change. This is why players can choose how they play in SotA.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Y'all know that Portalarium is not a AAA company right? Facts are something we all need to git learnt'.
I think the fact that SotA is going to let you choose a bit more about how your play is freaking awesome. I have played STO, I have played LOTRO, I have played NWO, I have played BSGO, I've played every MMO basically since Ultima Online. They either nerf PvP all together or you don't get a choice. People without a choice freak out and can't deal, at least here with SotA you may get some of those nubs choosing to go hardcore PvP and actually enjoy it because it is their choice. Don't forget how powerful the illusion of choice is. It is used on us every day.
If all the people dumping their money on in game property equates to me getting a better PvP engine, HELL YEAH, keep buying those houses you little wallet warriors.
http://insanemembrain.wordpress.com/
it will not function like darkfall for the reason there are much more games out there then at uo times .
and much more players that behave like douchebags.And trader and rp players doesnt need to join the pvp guys anymore they take another game where they dont get disturbed every 5 min think what you will but open world pvp days are long time over.
Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history."
This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.
I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it.
Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing).
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
Agree to the fullest.
Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.
Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.
Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.
Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.
So posts like this one, from 2002 were insane ravings?
How to bring back Felucca?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Always some other excuse for why so many PvP MMOs fail, but never due to PvP itself. Grow up.
Do you like to put fingers into your ears, close your eyes and go "LALALALALALAL CAN'T HEAR YOU!" in the real life, too?
Just because Felucca was emptying doesn't mean the game was dying... it just means exactly what I said. People didn't enjoy being ganked and griefed constantly so they migrated to Trammel when Renaissance launched and never went back in the same numbers. That does not correlate with the game losing subscribers however, and in fact if you look at the numbers, the opposite happened. No amount of attempts at revisionist gaming history is ever going to change that.
-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"
Member Since March 2004
Just because Felucca was emptying doesn't mean the game was dying... it just means exactly what I said. People didn't enjoy being ganked and griefed constantly so they migrated to Trammel when Renaissance launched and never went back in the same numbers. That does not correlate with the game losing subscribers however, and in fact if you look at the numbers, the opposite happened. No amount of attempts at revisionist gaming history is ever going to change that.
Are you responding to me? I was showing historical evidence that Felucca emptied out as soon as the players had someplace else to go. As you said, this was because they were tired of the PvP. There's also historical evidence that UO pulled in another 100k players or so after the release of Trammel so Trammel didn't "kill UO". Trammel just killed Felucca. Which is kind of ironic.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Your way or the highway right? Why aren't all you hardcore players playing Eve? I get a kick out of these kind of post. Game companies want to make money. Your type of game fails at that. But you do have Eve. Although Eve been around for more than 10 years and has never broke 500k subs. Be thankful that CCP is a small company and its one game is still around. I do wish someone would have the guts to make the game you guys want. Then we would see less post like this or maybe not. You guys seem to get bored of the game after 2 or 3 months and start posting again.
Note he said "A better Darkfall". But yes, Darkfall is a pretty great success story. As is Eve.
People seem to have this delusion that Darkfall is doing poorly.
A group of 12 devs on a 1 million dollar budget released an MMO that is technologically superior to many on the market, handling real time combat in a non zoned non instanced world with hundreds of players.
Fast forward 3 years later and the team has grown to 30 devs, moved into a larger office building, opened a second server, released its third expansion.
Fast forward to present day, team is up to 60 full time devs, move to yet a bigger office, released a sequel/massive overhaul to the game, have boxes in stores, about to release to a whole new sector of the globe. And its still a sub based game.
Darkfall isn't a success story? Compared to what? Compared to games like SWTOR where the dev team gets cut by 4/5 after launch, where company stocks drop, where the founders ditch the company, where the game is forced to go FTP? Compared to Rift, the most successful modern themepark (WoW clone) where it has merged servers and fired devs over the last two years?
Compare it all to Eve, a game STILL GROWING in population over 11 years later, now the most subscribed to MMO outside of WoW.
Well designed niche games are the success stories of the MMO genre, they always have been. The only outlier has been WoW.
Now, on topic, this game isn't even really an MMO. The world can be played singleplayer, the entire thing is instanced more or less. It's certainly no UO.
What was immature about what he said? He is right. Darkfall was poorly executed with an untrustworthy studio behind it. Mortal OL fared far worse. EVE does pretty well considering how niche the entire game is. Open PVP, harsh penalties, as well as a space sim wrapping. All of those things are severely niche in and of themselves. Yet good game design and execution have gone a long way to building a lasting community.
PVP has quite a following, what it lacks is one major game that fits it's core desires per capita. What I mean by that is, one game that speaks to the multiple types of PVP oriented players and guilds out there. There are many of these for the PVE oriented player.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson