Yes, Trammel rode the wave of growth and reputation that the very successful FFA PvP Ultima Online developed over a period of two and a half years and it grew by about another 50,000 subscriptions from 185,000 in one final year of growth with a new housing area, along with a change requiring an additional account to place a new house and by increasing the number of servers by opening up an entirely new market in Asia. It could be argued that even though subscriptions increased the playerbase didn't much and it was not because of any improvement to the game, but instead a new market and players with additional accounts.
And, the evidence is that shortly after that first year of Trammel, everyone realized that Ultima Online was no longer offering a unique experience, that the game was no longer worth playing enough for it to continue to grow, that there were much better consensual only games available to play than Trammel. At the same time, those that enjoyed the competition of the FFA PvP UO virtual world also quit coming to Ultima Online as that was ruined too.
Two sets of rules for the same game and one is simply easier with no consequence - idiotic.
Trammel - biggest mistake in Ultima Online history.
My god give it a rest Semp, your a raving loon on a non stop rant, bashing a game that you obviously dont play anyway, save your BS for the kiddies in the schoolyard. Your wearing out your fingers typing the same thing over and over and pluggin in the same rediculous graph to try and make a point that only you see.
Originally posted by vengeful85 My god give it a rest Semp, your a raving loon on a non stop rant, bashing a game that you obviously dont play anyway, save your BS for the kiddies in the schoolyard. Your wearing out your fingers typing the same thing over and over and pluggin in the same rediculous graph to try and make a point that only you see.
Coming from someone that played 28 hours of Ultma Online this week, I would say your opinion of whether or not UO game play was ruined by Electronic Arts means NOTHING.
And, apparently I'm in the right place, because you are one of "the kiddies in the schoolyard."
In my next lesson I am going to teach you the difference between "you're" and "your" and how to spell "plugging" and "ridiculous."
If FFA PvP is so popular, tell me why Siege Perilous, a shard with NO Insurance, All Fel ruleset on any facet (Anyone can kill anyone anywhere), is one of the least populated shards on UO while production shards with Trammel like Pacific, Great Lakes, and Atlantic are heavily populated.
And don't tell me it's because of the fact you can only have one character, or the RoT system... because the "classic" UO had a much slower skillgain than today's shards.
Siege Perilous, which was originally designed to be more of a hard-core or advanced server, thus drawing that type of players, has been hit with the content and development of nearly every single one of the same crappy childish consensual Trammel type expansions as the rest of the shards, from private housing and instanced corpses to bags of sending, giant rideable beetle containers, ninjas, blessed items and endless item properties. As a result, the game design there is even more messed up than other shards.
These consensual based expansions and publishes were even more of a slap in the face to those of us struggling to find some remnants of the amazing original Ultima Online gameplay on Siege, than it was to any other players. There we were actually seeking refuge from the game destroying changes that were taking place on other shards only to be hit with exact same crap we were trying to get away from. Eventually everyone felt betrayed and gave up and left. What is the point in playing on Siege if it is going to be Trammelized with the same garbage we were trying to escape, regardless of our feedback? EA is just out to make an quick buck, they don't give a damn about the gameplay or the game in the long run.
Originally posted by Cerene Originally posted by sempiternal EA is just out to make an quick buck, they don't give a damn about the gameplay or the game in the long run.
Well, they are out to make a quick buck, but they do care about gameplay to the extent that they want to maximize their player base, aka revenue.
Your preferred non-consensual PvP is a minority preference.
I don´t think it is a minority preference. Out of roughly 120 guildies before Trammel, in a roleplaying lawful good guild, about 100 quit shortly after Trammel. Same went for almost very guild I knew of. Others DID take our place and that goes a long way in showing that many people liked the facets thing. But still, there was no gain to the game whatsoever. It just exchanged a bunch of loyal players for another, which doesn´t make much sense to me, because even the percentage of a$$holes in the game didn´t change.
Yet, if EA had the brains to reinstate 5 or 6 "classic" servers, I bet they would be full within 14 days.. Now, I won´t go ranting about how lame Trammel or -worse- AoS and samurais are, because it´s obvious what i think about it. And EA did so much -even aside from UO- to earn player hate that I won´t even start talking about it either.
But I seriously don´t think that it would make sense to rollback or any such nonsense. I just would like them to do the obvious thing and save us from poorly managed freeshards by offering us the thing we are willing TO PAY for: classic servers. Even 2d, I couldn´t care less about graphics, no, even worse, i LOVE UO´s 2D graphics. I don´t need gaudy houses 1.000.000 lootable items, 7xGM in 2 days, I need my fix of good old UO RPing, in a world of danger -not by choice but by default-.
Originally posted by sempiternal EA is just out to make an quick buck, they don't give a damn about the gameplay or the game in the long run.
Well, they are out to make a quick buck, but they do care about gameplay to the extent that they want to maximize their player base, aka revenue.
Your preferred non-consensual PvP is a minority preference.
I don´t think it is a minority preference. Out of roughly 120 guildies before Trammel, in a roleplaying lawful good guild, about 100 quit shortly after Trammel. Same went for almost very guild I knew of. Others DID take our place and that goes a long way in showing that many people liked the facets thing. But still, there was no gain to the game whatsoever. It just exchanged a bunch of loyal players for another, which doesn´t make much sense to me, because even the percentage of a$$holes in the game didn´t change.
Yet, if EA had the brains to reinstate 5 or 6 "classic" servers, I bet they would be full within 14 days.. Now, I won´t go ranting about how lame Trammel or -worse- AoS and samurais are, because it´s obvious what i think about it. And EA did so much -even aside from UO- to earn player hate that I won´t even start talking about it either.
But I seriously don´t think that it would make sense to rollback or any such nonsense. I just would like them to do the obvious thing and save us from poorly managed freeshards by offering us the thing we are willing TO PAY for: classic servers. Even 2d, I couldn´t care less about graphics, no, even worse, i LOVE UO´s 2D graphics. I don´t need gaudy houses 1.000.000 lootable items, 7xGM in 2 days, I need my fix of good old UO RPing, in a world of danger -not by choice but by default-.
Whatever, flame me down, I´m only dreaming
I couldn't have said it better. How long, and how many of us have been QQing for a classic server? I won't assume EA is as stupid as everyone else does. I beleive they can see that it would be very profitable to flick on a classic server when Kingdom Reborn hits shelves.
I beleive the real reason is because they are unable to build a classic server. I'm willing to bet they would drop a classic server if it could be done easily, but trying to revert a server back to say.. Publish 16, would probably be just as much work as making the game from scratch. It's not hard to sift through the internet and see the HUNDREDS of posts of UO veterans that left for one reason or another throughout UO's lifetime. I am led to beleive it is one of three things: It isn't financial feasible to develop a classic server, they don't want to admit any wrong-doings on the part of the changes made, or they REALLY arn't aware of the complete shite they implemented into their game (I find this tough to beleive).
I'm guessing a conversation in EA went like this, "We don't have any money to spend on UO, so we'll use it as a cash cow as long as it lasts to pump money into other things. Assign a part-time development team to add a scripted event every few months and some shiny new objects to make it look like we care."
Not that any UO developers would ever read this, but someone get ahold of management and tell them there is a place in this market for a niche game like UO to cater to the pvp players that originally populated UO!
Originally posted by sempiternal Siege Perilous, which was originally designed to be more of a hard-core or advanced server, thus drawing that type of players, has been hit with the content and development of nearly every single one of the same crappy childish consensual Trammel type expansions as the rest of the shards, from private housing and instanced corpses to bags of sending, giant rideable beetle containers, ninjas, blessed items and endless item properties. As a result, the game design there is even more messed up than other shards.
LOL Semp, you are just a big whiner. First you say its the trammel ruleset that is the problem. Now you are saying its actually UO's itemization, pets, and housing that are the problems. Geez man make up your mind. You are just going to be complaining for the rest of your life. You obviously have no clue what your want. Exactly why UO doesnt have pretrammel shards, because anyone wanting them are just a bunch of retards, and would be complaining about something else next week to explain why nobody is playing on the server with them.
I couldn't have said it better. How long, and how many of us have been QQing for a classic server? I won't assume EA is as stupid as everyone else does. I beleive they can see that it would be very profitable to flick on a classic server when Kingdom Reborn hits shelves.
EA would be stupid to put in Classic FFA Servers.
I remember in DAOC when the boards had a few whiners like yourself complaining about FFA PVP. If only the pvp was FFA instead of concentual, Oh how many people would play on that server. Please please give us FFA PVP servers so we can show you how many people like it. DAOC gave them 2 FFA PVP servers. 6 months later they shut 1 server down because 10 people was the most that would log on at one time. The other hovers around 100 people, and consistently has people filling the boards begging people to play on the "mordred" FFA PVP server. Whats funny is how so many high levels beg for people to play on the server, yet they wont stop killing the newbs level 10 players that join, which is the main reason nobody plays on the server. Go figure.
Originally posted by Brainy Originally posted by LyfeI couldn't have said it better. How long, and how many of us have been QQing for a classic server? I won't assume EA is as stupid as everyone else does. I beleive they can see that it would be very profitable to flick on a classic server when Kingdom Reborn hits shelves.
EA would be stupid to put in Classic FFA Servers.
I remember in DAOC when the boards had a few whiners like yourself complaining about FFA PVP. If only the pvp was FFA instead of concentual, Oh how many people would play on that server. Please please give us FFA PVP servers so we can show you how many people like it. DAOC gave them 2 FFA PVP servers. 6 months later they shut 1 server down because 10 people was the most that would log on at one time. The other hovers around 100 people, and consistently has people filling the boards begging people to play on the "mordred" FFA PVP server. Whats funny is how so many high levels beg for people to play on the server, yet they wont stop killing the newbs level 10 players that join, which is the main reason nobody plays on the server. Go figure.
Yah I am sure EA wants to repeat that mistake.
You´re calling a lot of people retards, for someone who seriously compares FFA pvp in a level-based game with FFA pvp in a skillbased game. Even more stupid: comparing an RvR levelbased game trying out FFA pvp with UO. If you´re gonna dispute anything here, rent yourself a brain first and learn how to use it before starting to flame. On another note: the real minority is you. Last time I was in the game, 4 months ago, it was a bloody desert outside brit and all the vets I met were moaning about the good old days, before everyone became insanely rich and totally l337, when prices for good items were in the small thousands and people greeted you when passing by. I have long ago left the game without hard feelings, every year or so I´ll reactivare for a month, visit the hardcore few friends that are still around, make a dungeon crawl or two and go again. People like you, on the other hand, are in denial, which becomes apparent at your violent reaction to criticism.
It is funny, even after more than 5 years, the followers of the "new" UO are still defensive. Probably not all of them though. Only the people that couldn´t handle the heat, people that only got anywhere on their server because all the really good players left. The "we like it that way and you go stick whatever in your -emmm- eye"- approach.
Reminds me a bit of the SWG forum. Over there they call them losers.
You´re calling a lot of people retards, for someone who seriously compares FFA pvp in a level-based game with FFA pvp in a skillbased game. Even more stupid: comparing an RvR levelbased game trying out FFA pvp with UO. If you´re gonna dispute anything here, rent yourself a brain first and learn how to use it before starting to flame. On another note: the real minority is you. Last time I was in the game, 4 months ago, it was a bloody desert outside brit and all the vets I met were moaning about the good old days, before everyone became insanely rich and totally l337, when prices for good items were in the small thousands and people greeted you when passing by. I have long ago left the game without hard feelings, every year or so I´ll reactivare for a month, visit the hardcore few friends that are still around, make a dungeon crawl or two and go again. People like you, on the other hand, are in denial, which becomes apparent at your violent reaction to criticism.
It is funny, even after more than 5 years, the followers of the "new" UO are still defensive. Probably not all of them though. Only the people that couldn´t handle the heat, people that only got anywhere on their server because all the really good players left. The "we like it that way and you go stick whatever in your -emmm- eye"- approach.
Reminds me a bit of the SWG forum. Over there they call them losers.
LOL You can try to flame me all you want. Yet you offer ZERO evidence for your claims. You know a guy who heard from a guy that remembers UO in the old days? What the heck does item inflation have to do with FFA PVP? There was item/gold inflation way before trammel. I remember when people I knew were duping gold/items left and right with the black screen bug. Thats irrelevant to this discussion thou.
All you have proved in your post is that whiners will continue to whine regardless of what game them play. There will always be something for you to complain about. Maybe if you could offer up some facts that show FFA PVP servers are doing better in some game that has both options available, hmm what a concept to have facts to support your claims? I guess thats just to much to ask, its much easier to just say you know a friend who knows a friend who heard from thier brothers uncle that the game was better a long time ago.
You proved my point about "retard". As its obvious you have no facts to support your claim.
ROFL "the vets I met" became "a guy who heard from a guy". And, oh yeah : "there was inflation even before Trammel". That´s TOO lame, even for this forum. 1999 the most powerful and rare swords in the game (katana or halberd of vanq.) were selling for 70-80k. You´re such a troll.
You want facts: google Ultima Online and read what people think of your "coexistence"-concept.. But that would require you to abandon your state of denial and basic troll-ism and you ´re not ready for that.
Originally posted by avienthas ROFL "the vets I met" became "a guy who heard from a guy". And, oh yeah : "there was inflation even before Trammel". That´s TOO lame, even for this forum. 1999 the most powerful and rare swords in the game (katana or halberd of vanq.) were selling for 70-80k. You´re such a troll.
You want facts: google Ultima Online and read what people think of your "coexistence"-concept.. But that would require you to abandon your state of denial and basic troll-ism and you ´re not ready for that.
I completely agree. One only has to google and search for a few of the guilds that left UO in droves because of one thing or another. If it wasn't the reputation patch, it was trammel. If it wasn't trammel it was AoS. Instead of arguing about which specific things obliterated UO's population, we should be clear about one thing.
Different server sets are a serious asset. You get idiots like Brainy here who cringe at the thought of getting PKed. On the other hand you have people who enjoy PVP, RPers who consider it more realistic, and people who just like the thought of playing in a game that doesn't have the challenge of The Sims Online.
I wouldn't ever suggest change the current servers. The last thing UO needs is to piss off their already dwindling player-base. Avien was right in the fact you should never compare PVP in a game like UO to one in Daoc. In Ultima you could grab a spear and start stabbing people right off the bat. A newbie could loot a corpse, run like hell, and if he escaped he'd get some decent gear! If he got caught, the people to bring him to justice would also get some satisfaction.
If you want facts to backup my opinions, ask players about UO. Go into another game and ask the players what they thought of UO. When I asked last night in my UO guild, there were 3 people that quit for various reasons such as the ones I stated above. All 3 of them still thought nothing could compare to how UO was.
If you want facts to backup my opinions, ask players about UO. Go into another game and ask the players what they thought of UO. When I asked last night in my UO guild, there were 3 people that quit for various reasons such as the ones I stated above. All 3 of them still thought nothing could compare to how UO was.
Who cares what 3 people said. Facts are these same people have no clue what they want. Its common knowledge in psychology that people always look back at the past with nostalgia. Ohhh how great things would be in the "past". Every single game has its players saying that. Look at DAOC, if only we had "classic" servers. So they create them, and notice how 300,000 people are not going back to play DAOC? Why not they got thier wish? SWG has its group saying "things were so great before patch xxx". Every game has or will have people saying that at some point. Thats absolutely irrelavant. Let those people put thier money where there mouth is and show some support of the so called "perferred playstyle" by actually playing on FFA PVP servers? That way you dont have to come on these boards trying to quote what 3 people said, or what some brothers friends uncle said.
PVP FFA: DAOC put 2 servers in, COMPLETE FAILURE. UO made SP server, 1 server out of 20ish and they cant even fill that one up? SB had it, its FREE NOW. AC sorta had it, game is about dead. Darkfall was suppose to have it, yet cannot even get a following of support to become anything other then VAPORWARE. When you compare that to the concentual PvP games, funny how all of them are alive and well when compared to the FFA PVP counterparts.
UO is the best example of all. Felluca has FFA PVP and yet its EMPTY. Seige Perilous is an entire FFA PVP server, and its the least popular server of all, representing less then 3% of UO's playerbase. If FFA PVP was so popular there would be 20 FFA PVP servers thriving, and only 1 floundering Trammel Server, yet its reversed and you cant explain it. You all keep going around in circles yet never seem to be able to answer that one dilemma.
Different server sets are a serious asset. You get idiots like Brainy here who cringe at the thought of getting PKed.
Different server sets are not an asset when then fail. They become a serious embarassment. FFA PVP servers all over have shown that they are an embarassment.
You can go on trying to say people like me dont like pvp but you would be wrong. Every game I can think of that I have ever played was pvp based, except for Civ IV which I played briefly. I love PVP and have played many many games for the pvp.
Your problem is there is not a single example of a successful FFA PVP game across any video game type. When I say successful I mean a game that has most of its market share in its genre. Even FPS games like counterstrike are not FFA PVP as you all want it. Because everyone concents to PVP, joins to PVP, doesnt have to PVP when they dont want to, and is at the same level as everyone else. RTS games are concentual PVP. Console games are concentual PVP.
So that basically makes the FFA PVP communtiy an extremely small deviant group of punk kids that want to get thier rocks off by killing noobs that cannot fight back. Maybe instead of whining on boards about FFA PVP. You should learn to PVP against skilled players instead of newbs, so that you can enjoy concentaul PVP like the rest of us.
Wrong, Ultima Online itself is a prefect example of a successful FFA PvP game.
Even with a broken, exploitable bounty system, UO was ALWAYS successful AND GROWING as a FFA PvP only game.
Also don't forget the 2nd and 3rd most populated MMOGs in the world, with millions of subscribers, Lineage and Linage II.
And pay attention to even the watered down PvP in WoW. Of 179 servers, 90 of them are PvP and only 72 are PvE and the average populations of the PvP servers are 120% that of the PvE servers.
Games are competition.
Instead of crying, learn to play or play with yourself.
My god give it a rest Semp, your a raving loon on a non stop rant, bashing a game that you obviously dont play anyway, save your BS for the kiddies in the schoolyard. Your wearing out your fingers typing the same thing over and over and pluggin in the same rediculous graph to try and make a point that only you see.
Coming from someone that played 28 hours of Ultma Online this week, I would say your opinion of whether or not UO game play was ruined by Electronic Arts means NOTHING.
And, apparently I'm in the right place, because you are one of "the kiddies in the schoolyard."
In my next lesson I am going to teach you the difference between "you're" and "your" and how to spell "plugging" and "ridiculous."
My bad pardon my grammerical errors, they still don't make you any less of a moron with your cheesy old graph and lousy answers to any real facts or opinions. You seem to be leaving out the fact that the most rapid growth UO ever experienced was after the announcement of the then forthcoming addition of Trammel, and the months after, the decline of any numbers in players that resulted after the release of Trammel was the twerps, griefers and "opportunistic" PK'rs leaving in droves when thier "prey" that play(ed) the game finally had an alternative to getting PK'd by 3 zitfaced stoner, living in mommy's basement PUNKS.
Furthermore as far as EA ruining UO or not i think the fact i played it for 28 hours that week does nothing but show my real opinion on the matter, also you seem to have forgotten the possibility that maybe i played all through the pre-trammel era up to the present day, and saw nothing but crybaby wannabees (like you) piss and moan about everything from soup to nuts that happened in the game while the rest of us went about our business as usual.
Ohh yeah, and i guess school is in for you there son. (now put out that reefer and get back to class).
2.
rediculous
Intentional mispronunciation of "ridiculous" (based on the common misspelling) to indicate that something is ridiculous while also insinuating that somebody involved is stupid (i.e. implying that they are just as stupid as people who misspell "ridiculous").
Person1: John says Bruce Willis is in Star Wars
Person2: That is REDiculous (i.e. John's idea is ridiculous and John is also an idiot).
My bad pardon my grammerical errors, they still don't make you any less of a moron with your cheesy old graph and lousy answers to any real facts or opinions. You seem to be leaving out the fact that the most rapid growth UO ever experienced was after the announcement of the then forthcoming addition of Trammel, and the months after, the decline of any numbers in players that resulted after the release of Trammel was the twerps, griefers and "opportunistic" PK'rs leaving in droves when thier "prey" that play(ed) the game finally had an alternative to getting PK'd by 3 zitfaced stoner, living in mommy's basement PUNKS.
"My bad pardon my grammerical errors..."
Apparently you do not know what a fact is, vengeful85, your whole post is worthless opinion.
Take a look at the graph I posted, it contains nothing but the facts as reported by Electronic Arts in official press releases or their employees themselves.
Who cares how you interpret it?
It is a fact that without Trammel, Renaissance or consensual only lands, the FFA PvP Ultima Online grew the entire time, all the way up to 185,000 subscriptions, even with the releases of Everquest and Asheron's Call half-way through the graph to the tune of over 300,000 competitive subscriptions. Once Trammel, Renaissance and the consensual only lands were released, even with double the housing area requiring additional accounts to place housing, Ultima Online only continued on the same uninterrupted growth from the pre-Trammel era for less than a year and then began to decline.
Your graph just shows that Trammel was a complete success. No other way to interpret it. UO got 185k before trammel because 185k didnt know there was going to be widespread griefing when they bought the package? 185k didnt have an opportunity to quit because they implemented a Trammel expansion to solve the problem?
UO actually has a very slow growth rate when compared to EQ. If UO would have had trammel on DAY 1 they would have seen growth rates equivalent to EQ, rather then people joining then immediately quiting. Whats even proves your arguement more wrong, is that the two PVE expansions Trammel and AOS actually had a higher growth rate then UO did when it was released. Please explain that?
I want to know how long you actually played the game Brainy. It seems all of your opinions indicate you bought the game, tried to do some mining, got pked, got frustrated, and then quit within the same day . Please be aware that not everyone is a pussy such as yourself. There's no need for you to constantly dispute the popularity of pvp in UO.
Please familiarize yourself with the mainstream population and do yourself a favor. You make yourself look like an idiot by crying about how PVP in UO was only griefing and ganking. Are you oblivious to the thousands of people playing pre-trammel UO shards even though the game is 9 years old? There are games with MUCH better graphics that are also free to play.
As it stands, UO had huge turnover not because of the lamers (ie. you) that would quit after they got pked a few times, but because of the people that loved skill and pvp and continually quit because of the changes made to satisfy the VOCAL MINORITY . Want proof? Almost every shadowbane/darktide/darkfall/wow pvp player at one time played UO and loved it until changes were made that did not cater to their playstyle.
all i can say is LOL, i basically read almost all the posts in here cuz i needed to kill time (patching a game) anyway do u see how fun it is? almost everyone is arguing about something or whatnot (against each other--good guy vs bad guy)....my point is its fun dont u guys see it?this is what made UO so fun....LOL....good side vs bad side....if someone didnt start this post there wouldnt be so many arguments....but being able to argue back and forth is fun wouldnt u all agree?...otherwise u wouldnt be arguing so much...anyway i wouldnt know which side is good and which is bad....but if u all were in the game all the pvp lovers would be waiting at the moongate on fel side and all the pve(or whatever u like doing in tram) players are on tram moongate side yelling at each other through moongate communication....ROFL...i dont know i have a wierd imagination...but like some or most people said without good and evil COEXISTING its not so fun...
anyway ok a different note...if u read about the new expansion coming out i had a post saying that i recently quit UO nov.23,06....and while i was playing there was still the halloween event going where the gatekeeper or whatever his name was pops up at any graveyard in tram and follows you till u die or kill him....it took about 10-20 (chased to town) people to kill him some got rezzes others didnt...but my point is that was a red NPC in TRAM....if they could gather that much people to kill a red npc and was fairly easy...would people in tram dare try it in fel? im pretty sure the event wouldnt even exist...i dont know if everyone gets my concept but yea....
Your graph just shows that Trammel was a complete success. No other way to interpret it. UO got 185k before trammel because 185k didnt know there was going to be widespread griefing when they bought the package? 185k didnt have an opportunity to quit because they implemented a Trammel expansion to solve the problem? UO actually has a very slow growth rate when compared to EQ. If UO would have had trammel on DAY 1 they would have seen growth rates equivalent to EQ, rather then people joining then immediately quiting. Whats even proves your arguement more wrong, is that the two PVE expansions Trammel and AOS actually had a higher growth rate then UO did when it was released. Please explain that?
Ultima Online was a non-consentual virtual world for two and a half years! Griefing always existed, it even exists in Trammel now and any game. However, what is important here is the Ultima Online continued to grow, even with your "griefing" that is incorrectly blamed for killing the game - what did everyone suddenly wake up one day after two and half years of playing and say to themsleves, "there's griefing in this game I quit." No. The game was growing the entire time. It was not until after Trammel was released and the consensual only lands, which put the game in competition with newer better consensual games that people woke up, realized the magic and game was gone from Ultima Online, moved on and the game quit growing.
The problem is that the reason it was growing was it started with zero? Of course it was going to grow. It was new, alot of people were curious, and people were having to make difficult decisions as to stay or leave based on the bad griefing mechanics of the game.
Brainy, maybe that could be your poor excuse for the first few months, it was growing because it was new, I'll even give you a year and a half for new growth, yes 1.5 years, people were willing to deal with the "griefing" because it was new and that's why more people kept signing up and playing than quitting during that whole time. However, here's something interesting, after Everquest and Asheron's Call were released Ultima Online kept growing at the same rate for another whole year exclusively under a non-consensual only environment even with these better consensual only MMOGs out there. That's two and a half years of steady growth even with consensual competition. It was not until after the world was split in half with Trammel and UO become consensual, with two sets of rules, that the game stopped attracting players and began dying.
Trammel solved griefing? Or did it make it worse by giving everyone a forcefield and no reason to interact with others? Look what is on the first page of the official UO forums nearly SEVEN years later:
Comments
Yes, Trammel rode the wave of growth and reputation that the very successful FFA PvP Ultima Online developed over a period of two and a half years and it grew by about another 50,000 subscriptions from 185,000 in one final year of growth with a new housing area, along with a change requiring an additional account to place a new house and by increasing the number of servers by opening up an entirely new market in Asia. It could be argued that even though subscriptions increased the playerbase didn't much and it was not because of any improvement to the game, but instead a new market and players with additional accounts.
And, the evidence is that shortly after that first year of Trammel, everyone realized that Ultima Online was no longer offering a unique experience, that the game was no longer worth playing enough for it to continue to grow, that there were much better consensual only games available to play than Trammel. At the same time, those that enjoyed the competition of the FFA PvP UO virtual world also quit coming to Ultima Online as that was ruined too.
Two sets of rules for the same game and one is simply easier with no consequence - idiotic.
Trammel - biggest mistake in Ultima Online history.
Coming from someone that played 28 hours of Ultma Online this week, I would say your opinion of whether or not UO game play was ruined by Electronic Arts means NOTHING.
And, apparently I'm in the right place, because you are one of "the kiddies in the schoolyard."
In my next lesson I am going to teach you the difference between "you're" and "your" and how to spell "plugging" and "ridiculous."
And don't tell me it's because of the fact you can only have one character, or the RoT system... because the "classic" UO had a much slower skillgain than today's shards.
Siege Perilous, which was originally designed to be more of a hard-core or advanced server, thus drawing that type of players, has been hit with the content and development of nearly every single one of the same crappy childish consensual Trammel type expansions as the rest of the shards, from private housing and instanced corpses to bags of sending, giant rideable beetle containers, ninjas, blessed items and endless item properties. As a result, the game design there is even more messed up than other shards.
These consensual based expansions and publishes were even more of a slap in the face to those of us struggling to find some remnants of the amazing original Ultima Online gameplay on Siege, than it was to any other players. There we were actually seeking refuge from the game destroying changes that were taking place on other shards only to be hit with exact same crap we were trying to get away from. Eventually everyone felt betrayed and gave up and left. What is the point in playing on Siege if it is going to be Trammelized with the same garbage we were trying to escape, regardless of our feedback? EA is just out to make an quick buck, they don't give a damn about the gameplay or the game in the long run.
Well, they are out to make a quick buck, but they do care about gameplay to the extent that they want to maximize their player base, aka revenue.
Your preferred non-consensual PvP is a minority preference.
Well, they are out to make a quick buck, but they do care about gameplay to the extent that they want to maximize their player base, aka revenue.
Your preferred non-consensual PvP is a minority preference.
I don´t think it is a minority preference. Out of roughly 120 guildies before Trammel, in a roleplaying lawful good guild, about 100 quit shortly after Trammel. Same went for almost very guild I knew of. Others DID take our place and that goes a long way in showing that many people liked the facets thing. But still, there was no gain to the game whatsoever. It just exchanged a bunch of loyal players for another, which doesn´t make much sense to me, because even the percentage of a$$holes in the game didn´t change.
Yet, if EA had the brains to reinstate 5 or 6 "classic" servers, I bet they would be full within 14 days.. Now, I won´t go ranting about how lame Trammel or -worse- AoS and samurais are, because it´s obvious what i think about it. And EA did so much -even aside from UO- to earn player hate that I won´t even start talking about it either.
But I seriously don´t think that it would make sense to rollback or any such nonsense. I just would like them to do the obvious thing and save us from poorly managed freeshards by offering us the thing we are willing TO PAY for: classic servers. Even 2d, I couldn´t care less about graphics, no, even worse, i LOVE UO´s 2D graphics. I don´t need gaudy houses 1.000.000 lootable items, 7xGM in 2 days, I need my fix of good old UO RPing, in a world of danger -not by choice but by default-.
Whatever, flame me down, I´m only dreaming
Well, they are out to make a quick buck, but they do care about gameplay to the extent that they want to maximize their player base, aka revenue.
Your preferred non-consensual PvP is a minority preference.
I don´t think it is a minority preference. Out of roughly 120 guildies before Trammel, in a roleplaying lawful good guild, about 100 quit shortly after Trammel. Same went for almost very guild I knew of. Others DID take our place and that goes a long way in showing that many people liked the facets thing. But still, there was no gain to the game whatsoever. It just exchanged a bunch of loyal players for another, which doesn´t make much sense to me, because even the percentage of a$$holes in the game didn´t change.
Yet, if EA had the brains to reinstate 5 or 6 "classic" servers, I bet they would be full within 14 days.. Now, I won´t go ranting about how lame Trammel or -worse- AoS and samurais are, because it´s obvious what i think about it. And EA did so much -even aside from UO- to earn player hate that I won´t even start talking about it either.
But I seriously don´t think that it would make sense to rollback or any such nonsense. I just would like them to do the obvious thing and save us from poorly managed freeshards by offering us the thing we are willing TO PAY for: classic servers. Even 2d, I couldn´t care less about graphics, no, even worse, i LOVE UO´s 2D graphics. I don´t need gaudy houses 1.000.000 lootable items, 7xGM in 2 days, I need my fix of good old UO RPing, in a world of danger -not by choice but by default-.
Whatever, flame me down, I´m only dreaming
I couldn't have said it better. How long, and how many of us have been QQing for a classic server? I won't assume EA is as stupid as everyone else does. I beleive they can see that it would be very profitable to flick on a classic server when Kingdom Reborn hits shelves.
I beleive the real reason is because they are unable to build a classic server. I'm willing to bet they would drop a classic server if it could be done easily, but trying to revert a server back to say.. Publish 16, would probably be just as much work as making the game from scratch. It's not hard to sift through the internet and see the HUNDREDS of posts of UO veterans that left for one reason or another throughout UO's lifetime. I am led to beleive it is one of three things: It isn't financial feasible to develop a classic server, they don't want to admit any wrong-doings on the part of the changes made, or they REALLY arn't aware of the complete shite they implemented into their game (I find this tough to beleive).
I'm guessing a conversation in EA went like this, "We don't have any money to spend on UO, so we'll use it as a cash cow as long as it lasts to pump money into other things. Assign a part-time development team to add a scripted event every few months and some shiny new objects to make it look like we care."
Not that any UO developers would ever read this, but someone get ahold of management and tell them there is a place in this market for a niche game like UO to cater to the pvp players that originally populated UO!
EA would be stupid to put in Classic FFA Servers.
I remember in DAOC when the boards had a few whiners like yourself complaining about FFA PVP. If only the pvp was FFA instead of concentual, Oh how many people would play on that server. Please please give us FFA PVP servers so we can show you how many people like it. DAOC gave them 2 FFA PVP servers. 6 months later they shut 1 server down because 10 people was the most that would log on at one time. The other hovers around 100 people, and consistently has people filling the boards begging people to play on the "mordred" FFA PVP server. Whats funny is how so many high levels beg for people to play on the server, yet they wont stop killing the newbs level 10 players that join, which is the main reason nobody plays on the server. Go figure.
Yah I am sure EA wants to repeat that mistake.
EA would be stupid to put in Classic FFA Servers.
I remember in DAOC when the boards had a few whiners like yourself complaining about FFA PVP. If only the pvp was FFA instead of concentual, Oh how many people would play on that server. Please please give us FFA PVP servers so we can show you how many people like it. DAOC gave them 2 FFA PVP servers. 6 months later they shut 1 server down because 10 people was the most that would log on at one time. The other hovers around 100 people, and consistently has people filling the boards begging people to play on the "mordred" FFA PVP server. Whats funny is how so many high levels beg for people to play on the server, yet they wont stop killing the newbs level 10 players that join, which is the main reason nobody plays on the server. Go figure.
Yah I am sure EA wants to repeat that mistake.
You´re calling a lot of people retards, for someone who seriously compares FFA pvp in a level-based game with FFA pvp in a skillbased game. Even more stupid: comparing an RvR levelbased game trying out FFA pvp with UO.
If you´re gonna dispute anything here, rent yourself a brain first and learn how to use it before starting to flame. On another note: the real minority is you. Last time I was in the game, 4 months ago, it was a bloody desert outside brit and all the vets I met were moaning about the good old days, before everyone became insanely rich and totally l337, when prices for good items were in the small thousands and people greeted you when passing by. I have long ago left the game without hard feelings, every year or so I´ll reactivare for a month, visit the hardcore few friends that are still around, make a dungeon crawl or two and go again. People like you, on the other hand, are in denial, which becomes apparent at your violent reaction to criticism.
It is funny, even after more than 5 years, the followers of the "new" UO are still defensive
Probably not all of them though. Only the people that couldn´t handle the heat, people that only got anywhere on their server because all the really good players left. The "we like it that way and you go stick whatever in your -emmm- eye"- approach.
Reminds me a bit of the SWG forum. Over there they call them losers.
LOL You can try to flame me all you want. Yet you offer ZERO evidence for your claims. You know a guy who heard from a guy that remembers UO in the old days? What the heck does item inflation have to do with FFA PVP? There was item/gold inflation way before trammel. I remember when people I knew were duping gold/items left and right with the black screen bug. Thats irrelevant to this discussion thou.
All you have proved in your post is that whiners will continue to whine regardless of what game them play. There will always be something for you to complain about. Maybe if you could offer up some facts that show FFA PVP servers are doing better in some game that has both options available, hmm what a concept to have facts to support your claims? I guess thats just to much to ask, its much easier to just say you know a friend who knows a friend who heard from thier brothers uncle that the game was better a long time ago.
You proved my point about "retard". As its obvious you have no facts to support your claim.
ROFL "the vets I met" became "a guy who heard from a guy". And, oh yeah
You want facts: google Ultima Online and read what people think of your "coexistence"-concept.. But that would require you to abandon your state of denial and basic troll-ism and you ´re not ready for that.
I completely agree. One only has to google and search for a few of the guilds that left UO in droves because of one thing or another. If it wasn't the reputation patch, it was trammel. If it wasn't trammel it was AoS. Instead of arguing about which specific things obliterated UO's population, we should be clear about one thing.
Different server sets are a serious asset. You get idiots like Brainy here who cringe at the thought of getting PKed. On the other hand you have people who enjoy PVP, RPers who consider it more realistic, and people who just like the thought of playing in a game that doesn't have the challenge of The Sims Online.
I wouldn't ever suggest change the current servers. The last thing UO needs is to piss off their already dwindling player-base. Avien was right in the fact you should never compare PVP in a game like UO to one in Daoc. In Ultima you could grab a spear and start stabbing people right off the bat. A newbie could loot a corpse, run like hell, and if he escaped he'd get some decent gear! If he got caught, the people to bring him to justice would also get some satisfaction.
If you want facts to backup my opinions, ask players about UO. Go into another game and ask the players what they thought of UO. When I asked last night in my UO guild, there were 3 people that quit for various reasons such as the ones I stated above. All 3 of them still thought nothing could compare to how UO was.
Who cares what 3 people said. Facts are these same people have no clue what they want. Its common knowledge in psychology that people always look back at the past with nostalgia. Ohhh how great things would be in the "past". Every single game has its players saying that. Look at DAOC, if only we had "classic" servers. So they create them, and notice how 300,000 people are not going back to play DAOC? Why not they got thier wish? SWG has its group saying "things were so great before patch xxx". Every game has or will have people saying that at some point. Thats absolutely irrelavant. Let those people put thier money where there mouth is and show some support of the so called "perferred playstyle" by actually playing on FFA PVP servers? That way you dont have to come on these boards trying to quote what 3 people said, or what some brothers friends uncle said.
PVP FFA: DAOC put 2 servers in, COMPLETE FAILURE. UO made SP server, 1 server out of 20ish and they cant even fill that one up? SB had it, its FREE NOW. AC sorta had it, game is about dead. Darkfall was suppose to have it, yet cannot even get a following of support to become anything other then VAPORWARE. When you compare that to the concentual PvP games, funny how all of them are alive and well when compared to the FFA PVP counterparts.
UO is the best example of all. Felluca has FFA PVP and yet its EMPTY. Seige Perilous is an entire FFA PVP server, and its the least popular server of all, representing less then 3% of UO's playerbase. If FFA PVP was so popular there would be 20 FFA PVP servers thriving, and only 1 floundering Trammel Server, yet its reversed and you cant explain it. You all keep going around in circles yet never seem to be able to answer that one dilemma.
Different server sets are not an asset when then fail. They become a serious embarassment. FFA PVP servers all over have shown that they are an embarassment.
You can go on trying to say people like me dont like pvp but you would be wrong. Every game I can think of that I have ever played was pvp based, except for Civ IV which I played briefly. I love PVP and have played many many games for the pvp.
Your problem is there is not a single example of a successful FFA PVP game across any video game type. When I say successful I mean a game that has most of its market share in its genre. Even FPS games like counterstrike are not FFA PVP as you all want it. Because everyone concents to PVP, joins to PVP, doesnt have to PVP when they dont want to, and is at the same level as everyone else. RTS games are concentual PVP. Console games are concentual PVP.
So that basically makes the FFA PVP communtiy an extremely small deviant group of punk kids that want to get thier rocks off by killing noobs that cannot fight back. Maybe instead of whining on boards about FFA PVP. You should learn to PVP against skilled players instead of newbs, so that you can enjoy concentaul PVP like the rest of us.
Wrong, Ultima Online itself is a prefect example of a successful FFA PvP game.
Even with a broken, exploitable bounty system, UO was ALWAYS successful AND GROWING as a FFA PvP only game.
Also don't forget the 2nd and 3rd most populated MMOGs in the world, with millions of subscribers, Lineage and Linage II.
And pay attention to even the watered down PvP in WoW. Of 179 servers, 90 of them are PvP and only 72 are PvE and the average populations of the PvP servers are 120% that of the PvE servers.
Games are competition.
Instead of crying, learn to play or play with yourself.
Coming from someone that played 28 hours of Ultma Online this week, I would say your opinion of whether or not UO game play was ruined by Electronic Arts means NOTHING.
And, apparently I'm in the right place, because you are one of "the kiddies in the schoolyard."
In my next lesson I am going to teach you the difference between "you're" and "your" and how to spell "plugging" and "ridiculous."
My bad pardon my grammerical errors
, they still don't make you any less of a moron with your cheesy old graph and lousy answers to any real facts or opinions. You seem to be leaving out the fact that the most rapid growth UO ever experienced was after the announcement of the then forthcoming addition of Trammel, and the months after, the decline of any numbers in players that resulted after the release of Trammel was the twerps, griefers and "opportunistic" PK'rs leaving in droves when thier "prey" that play(ed) the game finally had an alternative to getting PK'd by 3 zitfaced stoner, living in mommy's basement PUNKS.
Furthermore as far as EA ruining UO or not i think the fact i played it for 28 hours that week does nothing but show my real opinion on the matter, also you seem to have forgotten the possibility that maybe i played all through the pre-trammel era up to the present day, and saw nothing but crybaby wannabees (like you) piss and moan about everything from soup to nuts that happened in the game while the rest of us went about our business as usual.
Ohh yeah, and i guess school is in for you there son. (now put out that reefer and get back to class).
Intentional mispronunciation of "ridiculous" (based on the common misspelling) to indicate that something is ridiculous while also insinuating that somebody involved is stupid (i.e. implying that they are just as stupid as people who misspell "ridiculous").
Person1: John says Bruce Willis is in Star Wars
Person2: That is REDiculous (i.e. John's idea is ridiculous and John is also an idiot).
"My bad pardon my grammerical errors..."
Apparently you do not know what a fact is, vengeful85, your whole post is worthless opinion.
Take a look at the graph I posted, it contains nothing but the facts as reported by Electronic Arts in official press releases or their employees themselves.
Who cares how you interpret it?
It is a fact that without Trammel, Renaissance or consensual only lands, the FFA PvP Ultima Online grew the entire time, all the way up to 185,000 subscriptions, even with the releases of Everquest and Asheron's Call half-way through the graph to the tune of over 300,000 competitive subscriptions. Once Trammel, Renaissance and the consensual only lands were released, even with double the housing area requiring additional accounts to place housing, Ultima Online only continued on the same uninterrupted growth from the pre-Trammel era for less than a year and then began to decline.
Your graph just shows that Trammel was a complete success. No other way to interpret it. UO got 185k before trammel because 185k didnt know there was going to be widespread griefing when they bought the package? 185k didnt have an opportunity to quit because they implemented a Trammel expansion to solve the problem?
UO actually has a very slow growth rate when compared to EQ. If UO would have had trammel on DAY 1 they would have seen growth rates equivalent to EQ, rather then people joining then immediately quiting. Whats even proves your arguement more wrong, is that the two PVE expansions Trammel and AOS actually had a higher growth rate then UO did when it was released. Please explain that?
I want to know how long you actually played the game Brainy. It seems all of your opinions indicate you bought the game, tried to do some mining, got pked, got frustrated, and then quit within the same day
. Please be aware that not everyone is a pussy such as yourself. There's no need for you to constantly dispute the popularity of pvp in UO.
Please familiarize yourself with the mainstream population and do yourself a favor. You make yourself look like an idiot by crying about how PVP in UO was only griefing and ganking. Are you oblivious to the thousands of people playing pre-trammel UO shards even though the game is 9 years old? There are games with MUCH better graphics that are also free to play.
As it stands, UO had huge turnover not because of the lamers (ie. you) that would quit after they got pked a few times, but because of the people that loved skill and pvp and continually quit because of the changes made to satisfy the VOCAL MINORITY
. Want proof? Almost every shadowbane/darktide/darkfall/wow pvp player at one time played UO and loved it until changes were made that did not cater to their playstyle.
all i can say is LOL, i basically read almost all the posts in here cuz i needed to kill time (patching a game) anyway do u see how fun it is? almost everyone is arguing about something or whatnot (against each other--good guy vs bad guy)....my point is its fun dont u guys see it?this is what made UO so fun....LOL....good side vs bad side....if someone didnt start this post there wouldnt be so many arguments....but being able to argue back and forth is fun wouldnt u all agree?...otherwise u wouldnt be arguing so much...anyway i wouldnt know which side is good and which is bad....but if u all were in the game all the pvp lovers would be waiting at the moongate on fel side and all the pve(or whatever u like doing in tram) players are on tram moongate side yelling at each other through moongate communication....ROFL...i dont know i have a wierd imagination...but like some or most people said without good and evil COEXISTING its not so fun...
anyway ok a different note...if u read about the new expansion coming out i had a post saying that i recently quit UO nov.23,06....and while i was playing there was still the halloween event going where the gatekeeper or whatever his name was pops up at any graveyard in tram and follows you till u die or kill him....it took about 10-20 (chased to town) people to kill him some got rezzes others didnt...but my point is that was a red NPC in TRAM....if they could gather that much people to kill a red npc and was fairly easy...would people in tram dare try it in fel? im pretty sure the event wouldnt even exist...i dont know if everyone gets my concept but yea....
Ultima Online was a non-consentual virtual world for two and a half years! Griefing always existed, it even exists in Trammel now and any game. However, what is important here is the Ultima Online continued to grow, even with your "griefing" that is incorrectly blamed for killing the game - what did everyone suddenly wake up one day after two and half years of playing and say to themsleves, "there's griefing in this game I quit." No. The game was growing the entire time. It was not until after Trammel was released and the consensual only lands, which put the game in competition with newer better consensual games that people woke up, realized the magic and game was gone from Ultima Online, moved on and the game quit growing.
Brainy, maybe that could be your poor excuse for the first few months, it was growing because it was new, I'll even give you a year and a half for new growth, yes 1.5 years, people were willing to deal with the "griefing" because it was new and that's why more people kept signing up and playing than quitting during that whole time. However, here's something interesting, after Everquest and Asheron's Call were released Ultima Online kept growing at the same rate for another whole year exclusively under a non-consensual only environment even with these better consensual only MMOGs out there. That's two and a half years of steady growth even with consensual competition. It was not until after the world was split in half with Trammel and UO become consensual, with two sets of rules, that the game stopped attracting players and began dying.
Trammel solved griefing? Or did it make it worse by giving everyone a forcefield and no reason to interact with others? Look what is on the first page of the official UO forums nearly SEVEN years later:
Griefing in Trammel: http://boards.stratics.com/php-bin/uo/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=7022825
Thanks for the bump, chump.