Originally posted by VikingGamer UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.
Full loot pvp games, always dont last long, unless the pvp is wanted by both sides.
UO that was the only AAA fantasy online MMO game with non-consensual PvP and full loot prove you wrong. EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows, made UO a WoW-game. The game continued on freeshards successfully for +5 years. All felucca freeshards together had more followers then the original game.
Largest freeshard had +150 000 members another had +100 000 members.
The market for a non-consensual full loot game is out there, just need a AAA developer make one.
Star Citicen is going the right way and thats why they are so much more successful then Shroud of the Avatar.
SoTA was made by the same guy that made UO. If UO really does prove that full loot pvp is the way to go, then Richard Garriot probably will have full loot PvP. If it didn't and eveyrones' mistaken due to whatever possible fault, then he probably won't.
Originally posted by VikingGamer UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.
Well, until Everquest came out and there was an actual choice. Once there was a place to go that didn't have ffa full loot pvp, people went.
Edit: It isn't a coincidence that in 2000, a year after EQ launched, the UO: Renaissance expansion added Trammel which gave those who didn't want a ffa experience a place to go. It also isn't coincidence that the population peaked 2 years later, so it was at its highest when there was an option to avoid ffa pvp.
Originally posted by TiamatRoar SoTA was made by the same guy that made UO. If UO really does prove that full loot pvp is the way to go, then Richard Garriot probably will have full loot PvP. If it didn't and eveyrones' mistaken due to whatever possible fault, then he probably won't.
He have made a mistake when he decided to go for making just another carebear game, there is so many other out there.
Look at Star Citizen with full loot and non-consensual PvP, they have 10 times as many pledgers. I wonder why?
Originally posted by VikingGamer UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.
Well, until Everquest came out and there was an actual choice. Once there was a place to go that didn't have ffa full loot pvp, people went.
Edit: It isn't a coincidence that in 2000, a year after EQ launched, the UO: Renaissance expansion added Trammel which gave those who didn't want a ffa experience a place to go. It also isn't coincidence that the population peaked 2 years later, so it was at its highest when there was an option to avoid ffa pvp.
It was also at it's highest when it still had non-consensual PvP with full loot in felucca, the real UO.
Europe server felucca was just as crowded as trammel was february 2003 when EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows.
After UO became a carebear game it went downhill with subscribers, had nothing to do with felucca, full loot or non-consensual PvP.
1. You get ganked by someone much higher level/character-skill than you, and you get absolutely destroyed with no chance of victory whatsoever. Which is frustrating.
or
2. You gank someone much lower level than you, which gives you no real challenge or satisfaction at all, because you know the other guy never had a chance.
That's why modern MMO's are stupid.
Of course levels are autist tier and simply grinding your level to get better stats and then gank lower players is very retarded.
This is why Garrott should instead make it so player skill matters first and foremost.
In UO you could be a newb and still trick some more experienced players and get their stuff.
You could place traps, hide, poison food, etc...
This is the smart way to implement PvP.
Will Garrott do this? No, because developers HATE FUN!
They HATE fun, HATE innovation, HATE challenges and LOVE carebarism.
Originally posted by HarikenOriginally 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.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. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors. Originally posted by ThomasN7Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm!
It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol and dopamine in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good.
There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP.
Wow...just wow...this game is dead
If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever.
Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)
Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
We're creating different experiences for different kinds of players, and then we're wrapping them up together in the same world. My dream is to have both PvE and PvP players in the same persistent universe, with both of them feeling that they inhabit a dynamic living universe with plenty of opportunity and challenge without feeling that they are giving anything up. I kind of see it like a swimming pool with a shallow and deep end: Players can venture out as far as they want, at their own pace. They aren't thrown in the deep end at the start, but they also don't have to stay in the shallow end if they want more of a challenge.
Sounds like something 15 year olds come up with. "Itw ill have umm lasers ,and MINING and Dragons and Player VS Player and PVE, And treasure hunting, and and ANd!" When you try to design something for everyone, you fail. Either the game is hardcore, or it isn't. Trying to find something in the middle will just make both types of players hate the game.
1 - Full Loot just supports ganking and griefing
Then pay someone protection money. What... 2real4u?
2 - Loosing your Gear due to point 1 prevents 'casual' people from taking part in PvP encounters
Then they shouldn't leave their safe little city dwelling where the wild things roam (and pks)! 2stressful4u?
Due to full loot, Equipment must be rather fast replaceable, which means that gear has no meaning or representive purpose anymore, everyone playing in a guild will have the same cooky butter gear, the casuals will have low tier stuff which will disadvantage them even more.
That's great! Maybe actually it's time when PLAYER SILLS STARTS MATTERING?
A perfect example of not doing it right is Mortal Online.
The only reason MO failed is because sloppy programming and bugs. The game was intended perfectly otherwise.
1. You get ganked by someone much higher level/character-skill than you, and you get absolutely destroyed with no chance of victory whatsoever. Which is frustrating.
or
2. You gank someone much lower level than you, which gives you no real challenge or satisfaction at all, because you know the other guy never had a chance.
That's why modern MMO's are stupid.
Of course levels are autist tier and simply grinding your level to get better stats and then gank lower players is very retarded.
This is why Garrott should instead make it so player skill matters first and foremost.
In UO you could be a newb and still trick some more experienced players and get their stuff.
You could place traps, hide, poison food, etc...
This is the smart way to implement PvP.
Will Garrott do this? No, because developers HATE FUN!
They HATE fun, HATE innovation, HATE challenges and LOVE carebarism.
Originally posted by Komandor Originally posted by HarikenOriginally 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.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. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors. Originally posted by ThomasN7Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good. There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP. Wow...just wow...this game is dead If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever.
Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)
Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.
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.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. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors. Originally posted by ThomasN7Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good. There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP. Wow...just wow...this game is dead
If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever.
Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)
Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.
How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.
Dont you see the difference?
Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.
This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.
And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen.
If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.
SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road.
Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.
SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.
Sorry to brake it to you, but people who enjoy running around killing people who cant defend them selves and stealing there stuff are a minority. Mortal Online has like 500 people that play, dark fall has around 1000, uo full loot pvp shards have less then 300, wizardry online has no one lol, and all the rest failed. With free to play being the major kind of game, this makes pvp where you lose all your stuff even less attractive, considering no one wants to lose their money to some one who is a higher level. The people who want full loot pvp, and a game where some ones always trying to murder you, are people who can just sit around and play mmorpgs all day long every day, with no chance of distraction. Some one with a family for instance doesnt want to play that, because at any moment they may have to leave the game. In those games you just cant go afk in the middle of what you were doing. Also in all those games, the people in the game just sit around and look how to take advantage of in game bugs, and grief every one. They just grief every one in till every one quits the game. Yep thats a reat idea for mmos. Make a game that breeds hate, and contempt for the other players, so they will all leave, but the elite ass holes.
And as far as uo, even when uo was a the only mmorpg, there still wasent many people playing it. Uo never had a player base compared to everquest or wow. No one wants to spend in a game 20 hours grinding out stuff to say get a boat or a house, and then has some one who can spent more time then them on a game take it from them. Most people want to relax and have a good time, not be stressed out every time they log in, wondering if some one is gonna steal all their stuff.
Originally posted by VikingGamer UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.
And aside from MUDs there was what, Meridian 59? UO didn't have a ton of competition and when you are basically the only kid on the block what else is there for players to play? Of COURSE it was going to have success, it was really the only thing going.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Then pay someone protection money. What... 2real4u?
Too lazy to quote me with my name? Haven't seen that "argument" of yours in that wall of quote text.
To your point:
Let's take your "perfect concepted" MO as an example: If you will pay 20 Gold to find a player that has nothing better to do than follow you to watch how you will chop wood or mine for six hours to earn 10 Gold worth of stuff (see the problem here?), then i wish you good luck, you won't find anyone that is dumb enough to bore himself to dead. This is one point. The other one is: Then the gankers will just come with two or more ppl, and welcome back again to Grieffest Online. This is completly unrealistic thinking here. And the main point is: This is not part of any territory struggles, this is just random killing. In many cases, they don't even care about your stuff.
Oh by the way: If "2real4u" (you are one 1337 killing machine, am i right? Hell yeah!) means "Boring to hell" or "realism over gameplay", than you are right: This is nothing for me (and 90% of the other gamers).
You simply can't put players into certain roles to play the game as you or the developers want it to be, not in an MMORPG. Some devs just don't want to see that, and that is one part of the fail galore.
2 - Loosing your Gear due to point 1 prevents 'casual' people from taking part in PvP encounters
Then they shouldn't leave their safe little city dwelling where the wild things roam (and pks)! 2stressful4u?
Gosh, this is even too silly to answer to. People want to go out to wilderness, they want to explore and take risks for valuable items, this is so plain clear, even you should get that. Stressful means: Going out and get randomly killed by a group. This no risk, because risk intends to have a chance. This is just no fun in the sense of frustration. Your argument (let me guess): Go play in a guild or hire a group. So that there are six people are watching me woodchopping. What a brillant concept.... No, thanks, then i prefer real time work, if you know what that is. Then i can buy me some more REALLY fun games.
Due to full loot, Equipment must be rather fast replaceable, which means that gear has no meaning or representive purpose anymore, everyone playing in a guild will have the same cooky butter gear, the casuals will have low tier stuff which will disadvantage them even more.
That's great! Maybe actually it's time when PLAYER SILLS STARTS MATTERING?
So i have an argument why player skills does NOT be of any meaning here, and your con argument is PLAYER SKILLS?
If you as a player can only do like 10-20% of the damage of your enemy, and you are equal or even better than him, you will loose. How is player skill relevant here? Oh yeah, wait... In MO you could glitch and trick around one, veteran player means: Knows all nasty prediction issues and uses them to his advantage. Fair? No.
This is a very conceptual issue, as the gear scales to much even at high tier levels. Of course, if anyone has exactly the same cooky butter gear, skill will matter. But why even play an MMORPG if you can't choose what to use?
A perfect example of not doing it right is Mortal Online.
The only reason MO failed is because sloppy programming and bugs. The game was intended perfectly otherwise.
Perfectly? Come on. It is the best we have, because there simply is no other game in that style out there (Darkfall is NOT comparable IMO). The next three years will release MANY high quality indie hardcore medieval titles, MO (and Darkfall) will have a hard time to survive them. The indie industry has recognized that the sandbox theme is getting more popular, and a good running niche game is better than nothing.
This game can only succeed if it doesn't have full looting and player stealing as proven by every previous game that had a similar approach to PvP, time after time.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Originally posted by Alber_gamer This game can only succeed if it doesn't have full looting and player stealing as proven by every previous game that had a similar approach to PvP, time after time.
Oldschool Ultima Online, before Age of Shadows ruined it, had full loot/stealing and felucca was doing just fine even after trammel were introduced. This is something many dont understand. During UO Renaissance (after trammel) i had my best time playing UO in felucca. The place was crowded.
So claiming game with full looting and stealing dont work just isnt right. I was there and saw it worked just fine.
If Richard Garriott had went for creating a new UO game with full loot and stealing non-consensual then he would have had alot more followers. That would have been going back to his online roots and a truly unique game compared to just another themepark game as SotA.
Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by Alber_gamerThis game can only succeed if it doesn't have full looting and player stealing as proven by every previous game that had a similar approach to PvP, time after time.
Oldschool Ultima Online, before Age of Shadows ruined it, had full loot/stealing and felucca was doing just fine even after trammel were introduced. This is something many dont understand. During UO Renaissance (after trammel) i had my best time playing UO in felucca. The place was crowded.
So claiming game with full looting and stealing dont work just isnt right. I was there and saw it worked just fine.
If Richard Garriott had went for creating a new UO game with full loot and stealing non-consensual then he would have had alot more followers. That would have been going back to his online roots and a truly unique game compared to just another themepark game as SotA.
You may have had your best time in the game, but most of the player population did not. Trammel was introduced as a direct response to player complaints. There had to be many of them for the developer to listen. There also had to be additional evidence that not having the option to avoid those mechanics was having a negative impact on the game. Some of Richard Garriott's own personal experience influenced the decision as well. Joystiq/Massively Interview With Richard Garriott
Player killing, looting and theft are interesting ideas, the problem is that they never work out that well when you give players the freedom to use those mechanics. It's only fun for a few people. That's why MMORPG and MMORPG-like games are moving away from those mechanics, or at least offering players the choice.
If SotA was a PK game with looting and stealing, it would certainly have the support of those players, but it would have far less support than it currently has because those mechanics are among the least popular options.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm sorry but "UO did great!" means absolutely nothing. Cool, a dated game with dated ideas did great YEARS ago, that has nothing to do with the current market, or the current player base. Besides, much of UO's popularity stemmed from it being the first real MMO, I doubt you would get even 100k subs if they re-released it without trammel with all of the newer MMO's out now.
So you can either take off your nostalgia glasses, or go play a UO freeshard, since you seem to obsess about that game so much.
Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by KomandorOriginally posted by HarikenOriginally 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.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. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors. Originally posted by ThomasN7Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good. There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP. Wow...just wow...this game is dead If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever. Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that) Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop. How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.
Dont you see the difference?
Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.
This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.
And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen.
If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.
SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road.
Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.
SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.
Wow was not a core product for Blizzard. It was, as the people who were there at launch can attest, a bug ridden, cr@ppy game, that had ideas that resonated with a lot of people. People showed up anyway. By the thousands they showed up. Mortal Online's ideas did not seem to resonate with very many people.
But let's take your argument at face value. If true, it means that the PvP aspects of a game are unimportant relative to the status and game writing skills of the developer. If true, that means SotA doesn't need player killing, looting or theft. It only needs to be well written by a AAA developer.
Also, at the scale that MMORPG development occurs, fifty people do not matter. Fifty people might matter to a game like MO, but not for a game the size that SotA is going to end up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Alber_gamerThis game can only succeed if it doesn't have full looting and player stealing as proven by every previous game that had a similar approach to PvP, time after time.
Oldschool Ultima Online, before Age of Shadows ruined it, had full loot/stealing and felucca was doing just fine even after trammel were introduced. This is something many dont understand. During UO Renaissance (after trammel) i had my best time playing UO in felucca. The place was crowded.
So claiming game with full looting and stealing dont work just isnt right. I was there and saw it worked just fine.
If Richard Garriott had went for creating a new UO game with full loot and stealing non-consensual then he would have had alot more followers. That would have been going back to his online roots and a truly unique game compared to just another themepark game as SotA.
You may have had your best time in the game, but most of the player population did not. Trammel was introduced as a direct response to player complaints. There had to be many of them for the developer to listen. There also had to be additional evidence that not having the option to avoid those mechanics was having a negative impact on the game. Some of Richard Garriott's own personal experience influenced the decision as well. Joystiq/Massively Interview With Richard Garriott
Player killing, looting and theft are interesting ideas, the problem is that they never work out that well when you give players the freedom to use those mechanics. It's only fun for a few people. That's why MMORPG and MMORPG-like games are moving away from those mechanics, or at least offering players the choice.
If SotA was a PK game with looting and stealing, it would certainly have the support of those players, but it would have far less support than it currently has because those mechanics are among the least popular options.
I played the game both before and after trammel and players that didnt shouldnt have an opinion at all. Were you in felucca before and after trammel?
Most players that enjoyed felucca before trammel stayed in felucca cause the game was even better after Renaissance was introduced, why leave a game that became better? There were loads of new players entering felucca after trammel.
Funniest part with this discussion is that players that never played old UO have such a hard opinion on something they dont have a clue about. If oldschool UO was a failure cause it had full loot and stealing then they know their way of playing is the right way, LOL.
SotA with a message that this will be oldschool UO2 would have way more followers then the today SotA.
I'm sorry but "UO did great!" means absolutely nothing. Cool, a dated game with dated ideas did great YEARS ago, that has nothing to do with the current market, or the current player base. Besides, much of UO's popularity stemmed from it being the first real MMO, I doubt you would get even 100k subs if they re-released it without trammel with all of the newer MMO's out now.
So you can either take off your nostalgia glasses, or go play a UO freeshard, since you seem to obsess about that game so much.
UO did good cause it was a good game. Why do you think so many continued to play on freeshards after original UO died february 2003? Some of the bigger freeshards had +150000 followers. That is more then the original game.
A new UO with better graphics would easily be more popular then SotA that is just another themepark game, not that original i would say.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
It could flop, but you dont know that. It could flop for any number of reasons, or not. It could be a lot more popular with less hardcore features too. You dont know that, neither do I. One thing I do know, currently there's not one "hardcore" mmorpg that is popular.
EVE is the closest thing to a "hardcore" mmorpg, but it has vast PvE friendly areas where you are relatively in very safe place.
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.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. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors. Originally posted by ThomasN7Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good. There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP. Wow...just wow...this game is dead
If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever. Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that) Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.
How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.
Dont you see the difference?
Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.
This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.
And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen.
If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.
SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road.
Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.
SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.
Wow was not a core product for Blizzard. It was, as the people who were there at launch can attest, a bug ridden, cr@ppy game, that had ideas that resonated with a lot of people. People showed up anyway. By the thousands they showed up. Mortal Online's ideas did not seem to resonate with very many people.
But let's take your argument at face value. If true, it means that the PvP aspects of a game are unimportant relative to the status and game writing skills of the developer. If true, that means SotA doesn't need player killing, looting or theft. It only needs to be well written by a AAA developer.
Also, at the scale that MMORPG development occurs, fifty people do not matter. Fifty people might matter to a game like MO, but not for a game the size that SotA is going to end up.
And how fast did they solve these bugs? What kind of rescources did Blizzard have compared to Star Vault, LOL.
AAA companies make themepark games not games like old UO so we cant really say what numbers a new UO would get.
I havent seen a AAA game created by a AAA developers since UO so any expectations of subscribers is very much assumptions. I know the demand for such a game is very high and it would easily have more then the +25000 we see follow SotA today.
If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.
It could flop, but you dont know that. It could flop for any number of reasons, or not. It could be a lot more popular with less hardcore features too. You dont know that, neither do I. One thing I do know, currently there's not one "hardcore" mmorpg that is popular.
EVE is the closest thing to a "hardcore" mmorpg, but it has vast PvE friendly areas where you are relatively in very safe place.
How many AAA companies have made a "hardcore" mmorpg? Economical and financial backup is essential if you want the high numbers of subscribers.
Comments
UO that was the only AAA fantasy online MMO game with non-consensual PvP and full loot prove you wrong. EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows, made UO a WoW-game. The game continued on freeshards successfully for +5 years. All felucca freeshards together had more followers then the original game.
Largest freeshard had +150 000 members another had +100 000 members.
The market for a non-consensual full loot game is out there, just need a AAA developer make one.
Star Citicen is going the right way and thats why they are so much more successful then Shroud of the Avatar.
Well, until Everquest came out and there was an actual choice. Once there was a place to go that didn't have ffa full loot pvp, people went.
Edit: It isn't a coincidence that in 2000, a year after EQ launched, the UO: Renaissance expansion added Trammel which gave those who didn't want a ffa experience a place to go. It also isn't coincidence that the population peaked 2 years later, so it was at its highest when there was an option to avoid ffa pvp.
He have made a mistake when he decided to go for making just another carebear game, there is so many other out there.
Look at Star Citizen with full loot and non-consensual PvP, they have 10 times as many pledgers. I wonder why?
It was also at it's highest when it still had non-consensual PvP with full loot in felucca, the real UO.
Europe server felucca was just as crowded as trammel was february 2003 when EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows.
After UO became a carebear game it went downhill with subscribers, had nothing to do with felucca, full loot or non-consensual PvP.
Also, why would ANYONE prefer SOTA to minecraft anarchy server?
In Minecraft you can craft and build.
You can explore.
You play a role.
You can kill other players, steal their loot and rob their house in anarchy servers.
SOTA - something fail this way comes
Not enough shiny for carebaars
Not enough hardcore for hardcore crowd
Keep on rockin'!
That's why modern MMO's are stupid.
Of course levels are autist tier and simply grinding your level to get better stats and then gank lower players is very retarded.
This is why Garrott should instead make it so player skill matters first and foremost.
In UO you could be a newb and still trick some more experienced players and get their stuff.
You could place traps, hide, poison food, etc...
This is the smart way to implement PvP.
Will Garrott do this? No, because developers HATE FUN!
They HATE fun, HATE innovation, HATE challenges and LOVE carebarism.
That's what's wrong with the world today.
Keep on rockin'!
It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol and dopamine in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft, but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good. Wow...just wow...this game is dead
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever.They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
Sounds like something 15 year olds come up with. "Itw ill have umm lasers ,and MINING and Dragons and Player VS Player and PVE, And treasure hunting, and and ANd!"When you try to design something for everyone, you fail. Either the game is hardcore, or it isn't. Trying to find something in the middle will just make both types of players hate the game. Then pay someone protection money. What... 2real4u? Then they shouldn't leave their safe little city dwelling where the wild things roam (and pks)! 2stressful4u? That's great! Maybe actually it's time when PLAYER SILLS STARTS MATTERING? The only reason MO failed is because sloppy programming and bugs. The game was intended perfectly otherwise.
Keep on rockin'!
+1
Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)
Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.
Dont you see the difference?
Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.
This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.
And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen.
If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.
SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road.
Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.
SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.
Sorry to brake it to you, but people who enjoy running around killing people who cant defend them selves and stealing there stuff are a minority. Mortal Online has like 500 people that play, dark fall has around 1000, uo full loot pvp shards have less then 300, wizardry online has no one lol, and all the rest failed. With free to play being the major kind of game, this makes pvp where you lose all your stuff even less attractive, considering no one wants to lose their money to some one who is a higher level. The people who want full loot pvp, and a game where some ones always trying to murder you, are people who can just sit around and play mmorpgs all day long every day, with no chance of distraction. Some one with a family for instance doesnt want to play that, because at any moment they may have to leave the game. In those games you just cant go afk in the middle of what you were doing. Also in all those games, the people in the game just sit around and look how to take advantage of in game bugs, and grief every one. They just grief every one in till every one quits the game. Yep thats a reat idea for mmos. Make a game that breeds hate, and contempt for the other players, so they will all leave, but the elite ass holes.
And as far as uo, even when uo was a the only mmorpg, there still wasent many people playing it. Uo never had a player base compared to everquest or wow. No one wants to spend in a game 20 hours grinding out stuff to say get a boat or a house, and then has some one who can spent more time then them on a game take it from them. Most people want to relax and have a good time, not be stressed out every time they log in, wondering if some one is gonna steal all their stuff.
Maybe because there are people who don't want to punch tree to get wood to build cabin?
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
And aside from MUDs there was what, Meridian 59? UO didn't have a ton of competition and when you are basically the only kid on the block what else is there for players to play? Of COURSE it was going to have success, it was really the only thing going.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Too lazy to quote me with my name? Haven't seen that "argument" of yours in that wall of quote text.
To your point:
Let's take your "perfect concepted" MO as an example: If you will pay 20 Gold to find a player that has nothing better to do than follow you to watch how you will chop wood or mine for six hours to earn 10 Gold worth of stuff (see the problem here?), then i wish you good luck, you won't find anyone that is dumb enough to bore himself to dead. This is one point. The other one is: Then the gankers will just come with two or more ppl, and welcome back again to Grieffest Online. This is completly unrealistic thinking here. And the main point is: This is not part of any territory struggles, this is just random killing. In many cases, they don't even care about your stuff.
Oh by the way: If "2real4u" (you are one 1337 killing machine, am i right? Hell yeah!) means "Boring to hell" or "realism over gameplay", than you are right: This is nothing for me (and 90% of the other gamers).
You simply can't put players into certain roles to play the game as you or the developers want it to be, not in an MMORPG. Some devs just don't want to see that, and that is one part of the fail galore.
Gosh, this is even too silly to answer to. People want to go out to wilderness, they want to explore and take risks for valuable items, this is so plain clear, even you should get that. Stressful means: Going out and get randomly killed by a group. This no risk, because risk intends to have a chance. This is just no fun in the sense of frustration. Your argument (let me guess): Go play in a guild or hire a group. So that there are six people are watching me woodchopping. What a brillant concept.... No, thanks, then i prefer real time work, if you know what that is. Then i can buy me some more REALLY fun games.
So i have an argument why player skills does NOT be of any meaning here, and your con argument is PLAYER SKILLS?
If you as a player can only do like 10-20% of the damage of your enemy, and you are equal or even better than him, you will loose. How is player skill relevant here? Oh yeah, wait... In MO you could glitch and trick around one, veteran player means: Knows all nasty prediction issues and uses them to his advantage. Fair? No.
This is a very conceptual issue, as the gear scales to much even at high tier levels. Of course, if anyone has exactly the same cooky butter gear, skill will matter. But why even play an MMORPG if you can't choose what to use?
Perfectly? Come on. It is the best we have, because there simply is no other game in that style out there (Darkfall is NOT comparable IMO). The next three years will release MANY high quality indie hardcore medieval titles, MO (and Darkfall) will have a hard time to survive them. The indie industry has recognized that the sandbox theme is getting more popular, and a good running niche game is better than nothing.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Oldschool Ultima Online, before Age of Shadows ruined it, had full loot/stealing and felucca was doing just fine even after trammel were introduced. This is something many dont understand. During UO Renaissance (after trammel) i had my best time playing UO in felucca. The place was crowded.
So claiming game with full looting and stealing dont work just isnt right. I was there and saw it worked just fine.
If Richard Garriott had went for creating a new UO game with full loot and stealing non-consensual then he would have had alot more followers. That would have been going back to his online roots and a truly unique game compared to just another themepark game as SotA.
So claiming game with full looting and stealing dont work just isnt right. I was there and saw it worked just fine.
If Richard Garriott had went for creating a new UO game with full loot and stealing non-consensual then he would have had alot more followers. That would have been going back to his online roots and a truly unique game compared to just another themepark game as SotA.
You may have had your best time in the game, but most of the player population did not. Trammel was introduced as a direct response to player complaints. There had to be many of them for the developer to listen. There also had to be additional evidence that not having the option to avoid those mechanics was having a negative impact on the game. Some of Richard Garriott's own personal experience influenced the decision as well. Joystiq/Massively Interview With Richard Garriott
Player killing, looting and theft are interesting ideas, the problem is that they never work out that well when you give players the freedom to use those mechanics. It's only fun for a few people. That's why MMORPG and MMORPG-like games are moving away from those mechanics, or at least offering players the choice.
If SotA was a PK game with looting and stealing, it would certainly have the support of those players, but it would have far less support than it currently has because those mechanics are among the least popular options.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm sorry but "UO did great!" means absolutely nothing. Cool, a dated game with dated ideas did great YEARS ago, that has nothing to do with the current market, or the current player base. Besides, much of UO's popularity stemmed from it being the first real MMO, I doubt you would get even 100k subs if they re-released it without trammel with all of the newer MMO's out now.
So you can either take off your nostalgia glasses, or go play a UO freeshard, since you seem to obsess about that game so much.
They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that) Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop.
How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.
WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.
How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.
Dont you see the difference?
Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.
This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.
And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen.
If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.
SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road.
Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.
SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.
Wow was not a core product for Blizzard. It was, as the people who were there at launch can attest, a bug ridden, cr@ppy game, that had ideas that resonated with a lot of people. People showed up anyway. By the thousands they showed up. Mortal Online's ideas did not seem to resonate with very many people.
But let's take your argument at face value. If true, it means that the PvP aspects of a game are unimportant relative to the status and game writing skills of the developer. If true, that means SotA doesn't need player killing, looting or theft. It only needs to be well written by a AAA developer.
Also, at the scale that MMORPG development occurs, fifty people do not matter. Fifty people might matter to a game like MO, but not for a game the size that SotA is going to end up.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I played the game both before and after trammel and players that didnt shouldnt have an opinion at all. Were you in felucca before and after trammel?
Most players that enjoyed felucca before trammel stayed in felucca cause the game was even better after Renaissance was introduced, why leave a game that became better? There were loads of new players entering felucca after trammel.
Funniest part with this discussion is that players that never played old UO have such a hard opinion on something they dont have a clue about. If oldschool UO was a failure cause it had full loot and stealing then they know their way of playing is the right way, LOL.
SotA with a message that this will be oldschool UO2 would have way more followers then the today SotA.
UO did good cause it was a good game. Why do you think so many continued to play on freeshards after original UO died february 2003? Some of the bigger freeshards had +150000 followers. That is more then the original game.
A new UO with better graphics would easily be more popular then SotA that is just another themepark game, not that original i would say.
It could flop, but you dont know that. It could flop for any number of reasons, or not. It could be a lot more popular with less hardcore features too. You dont know that, neither do I. One thing I do know, currently there's not one "hardcore" mmorpg that is popular.
EVE is the closest thing to a "hardcore" mmorpg, but it has vast PvE friendly areas where you are relatively in very safe place.
And how fast did they solve these bugs? What kind of rescources did Blizzard have compared to Star Vault, LOL.
AAA companies make themepark games not games like old UO so we cant really say what numbers a new UO would get.
I havent seen a AAA game created by a AAA developers since UO so any expectations of subscribers is very much assumptions. I know the demand for such a game is very high and it would easily have more then the +25000 we see follow SotA today.
How many AAA companies have made a "hardcore" mmorpg? Economical and financial backup is essential if you want the high numbers of subscribers.