Darkfall will not be a gankfest. Why? 1.) Big map. The map is so big, and the terrain so varied it will make it to be a gankfest EVERYWERE. A mineral spot camped by gankers? Go explore the massive world and find your own spot that noone else has found yet.... 2.) Politics. There will be clans that protect thier areas and make them gank free zones. Thier will be clans that hunt down gankers, thier will be clans that protect everyone from thier race, ect.... Thier will be alliances and who to not kill and who to kill. 3.) Alignment system. Kill to many people? No NPC cities for you. And what this means we are not sure of yet, but it could be verrrry bad. 4.) Full loot. Gankers are cowards for the most part, and once the game progressses and some of the more expensive gear comes into use, many people will not want to risk thier mount/amour/reagents/weapons. In darkfall the problem of ganking can be solved in so many ways. Pure crafter and getting ganked at a mining spot? Hire someone to protect you, or distract gankers, or join a crafting guild, or hire the ganker, or alert the anti's, ect.... Ganking is rampent in games like AOC becasue there is no RISK.
Just wait and see.
me : Err guys... look behind you, honest..
me : .....................zoik.....................
How do you "distract" some gankers? I recall my days in Neocron. All of a sudden a group of tanks would be on top of you, gun in your face....pew pew pew >>>>>> dead. You didn't even have time to blink half of the time, let alone enter a dialogue with them in a bid to distract them.
/shrug , maybe Darkfall lets you perform magic tricks?
It is really sad that I have to explain this to you. You could distract a group in any number of ways. Shooting a spell at them and running away in the opposite direction, kiting them, talking to them ect... If a group of people are on top of you killing you without your knowing, well /shrug you being gimp isnt anything the game can fix.
Hate to say it, but yes it will probably be a gankfest. It's easy to tell a high level from a low one (gear) and just standing out exit points to cities. A high level character could just mangle any newb coming out.
This is where I see Darkfall failing, newbs will get very frustrated and irritated and not stay. It's no fun when you get a nice new piece of gear, then some high level idiot decides to one hit you. Skills will always matter, higher one skill the more damage that weapon does. As gear still matters, as the better gear the more damage it will do. In the end I see any new subscribers quitting unless they find a veteran with high skills to follow them around while they quest.
I'm all for open PvP, although semi-open PvP. Say, I can't be killed by anyone 3 levels higher than myself and I can't kill any 3 levels lower. At least this way it makes it so you can't be owned by every other asinine player who just wants to make people angry.
If the PvP is truly completely open like this, I doubt I'll play Darkfall more than a month. It takes all the fun from an MMORPG when you can't progress because of PvP. When you get a new piece of gear and immediately die each time. Also keep in mind, not only will these high skill players be camping exits from social hubs, they'll be camping quest mob locations and other quest locations (say a chest or an item you need to find). In the end, unless there is some kind of limit to PvP, I won't play long. I want to play without getting ganked every three seconds.
Ultima Online launched with completely open pvp and look how that one ended. It was a gankfest and people started unsubscribing. They changed it and UO is still around today.
I forsee Darkfall (if it does release and succeeds) will change the ruleset so that it isn't open PvP and they will do it sooner rather then later.
Originally posted by khartman2005 Ultima Online launched with completely open pvp and look how that one ended. It was a gankfest and people started unsubscribing. They changed it and UO is still around today. I forsee Darkfall (if it does release and succeeds) will change the ruleset so that it isn't open PvP and they will do it sooner rather then later.
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
UO had a steadily increasing subscriber base until Renaissance came out. The Renaissance expansion was released in April of 2000. A few months later there was a sharp increase in subscribers and then a gradual increase over the next few months.
Then in late 2001 players started leaving and we see the first dip in subscribers since UO was released. So, in truth, UO was turned from a competative PvP game into a grindfest and people started unsubscribing.
No one can really say what would have happend with UO if the Renaissance expansion had never come out. I can tell you one thing though. I personally would still be playing it.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Because of the FFA PvP without safe zones, I dont expect DF will get many players.
You only need a few griefers that camp the newb starting zones to frustrate new players enough to stop playing.
I for one would be happy to protect newbs from time to time, but it wont be always possible. This will be again the typically stupid unbalanced crap where the players who raced to max lvl have fun and the newbs who start a bit later get frustrated, because they wont get the fair chance like the early access crowd did.
Griefers thrive on this. All they do is preventing others to have any fair fighting chance at all. Thats what they enjoy. Any game that will support this kind of cowardly behaviour with game mechanics will never get a large crowd. Simply because of the few cowards that like to bully newbs.
The division people have to understand in regards to games with really open PvP is between ganking happening and the game become a gankfest.
There will be ganking, - lots of it even, without any doubt. However, in an environment with an open world, no raid content and the like, things like this tend to even out pretty well.
Gankers hanging out near newbie spots 24/7 will automatically attract their "natural" coutnerpart for example. The only reason why you don't see that behaviour in games with some halfarsed, not thought through implementation of open world PvP is the fact that the "good" high level players are having other stuff to do, - all that precious endgame content, all those 12 hour raids hardly leave room for taking care of wiping a low level area of high level gankers and griefers. In a sandbox environment, this is different, - it's actually a part of endgame for everybody involved, an integral part of the fun.
People will move out and dedicatedly hunt down those fellows. - That won't be any guarantee for low levels not to be killed, but it will make it bearable for all those, coming with a fitting mindset for a game like this. You will have to be on your toes at all times, watch your back and be able to dust yourself off and go on in the event of being killed by others, maybe much more experienced characters.
Believing the lack of levels in DF being some sort of granted possibility of self defense in any case is naive, - no matter how high or low the impact of trained skills and gear might be, it will still be enough to leave a really fresh character without any chance against some highly experienced one. But there are others around, - at all times, and not just when they have a few spare mintues in between raids. There will be roaming bands that go after each other. There will be clans that make it their taks to keep control of certain parts of the world, not only by killing everyone trespassing, but also by allowing passage and making it safe.
If you add to that an alignment system and penalties, I'm pretty sure it can work out (I won't say it will, for that I don't have enoguh information on how things will look like in reality).
Be aware a game like this is NOT for everybody. You will have to want the extra thrill of being vulnerable wherever you are, if not, maybe test it, but don't expect it to be to your liking.
However, there are enough players to like that sort of environment much better than game dynamics taking over everything for them to allow for a game like this to live. The open world PvP was NOT what made UO loose numbers, nor was it what made for example Shadowbane loose numbers. The game has to work out and certain core aspects of especially the endgame (like sieges) have to be implemented in a way to make them not to much of a strain in the long run. Open world PvP and ganking won't be a problem then.
I must admit I've always though of gankers as little pussies that couldn't hack it in real pvp. Pvp is a risk, some like it some don't, but gankers just suck the life out of games. Rather like the stereotype bully on the playground taking every ones lunch money. I enjoy pvp, Not beating up lowbes . Guess we'll have to wait and see how well df handles things. I guess one thing is for sure , you're gonna die sometime from something.
How would you define a lowbie in Darkfall? How would you spot one?
Also why is a ganker a "little pussie"? A ganker is just someone who has an advantage and uses it to crush their enemy. Sounds like common sense to me. You can wander around trying to be a gentleman asking people for a fair fight if you like but dont expect others to do the same.
"Excuse me sir Orc I believe you have an unfair advantage. Your skill with that axe is clearly superior to my skill with this dagger and thats damn unfair. I also see that you have a few friends with you who also intend to kick my head in. Now thats very unsporting of you. I really must insist that you do the honourable thing and either fight me on your own while your friends stand back and watch or you allow me to call a few friends of my own to assist me. They can be here in about 20 minutes if you dont mind waiting. Otherwise you are not engaging me in the correct PvP protocols as stated in section 12b of the PvP Tactical Manual and that would therefore entitle me to call you "A little pussie who cannot hack real PvP" because everyone knows that real PvP is always equal and fair........
Oh you swine! You just killed me without giving me a chance to defeat you. I'm calling my mum!! Bwaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
hehe funny post Neon, but I think we see PvP a little differently. Neither is right or wrong of course, it's just perspective and preference.
If, in RL, I saw 5 guys start on 1 guy outside a pub and kick the crap outta him, I would think they were weak. If 2 guys mug another guy in RL, I think thats just weak. I think the same about zergers and gankers in PvP. It's just me.
For instance, If I see, while on some journey, some random guy who I have never met or heard of before siting and resting after fighting a mob, will I kill him for no reason while he is weak? Probably not... Thats not me.
Don't confuse this with weakness though, like I have have said before, I wouldnt be here if I wasnt up for the fight
Everyone, indeed, has the freedom to play DF as they see fit, and I love that about the game. I would hate to see rulesets to stop it happening. Indeed, the motivation for me in these games comes from putting down the 'mad dogs' that see the fact that just because you can do something, you should do something.
It takes all types to make PvP games work I guess
Actually I agree with that. When I typed that post I believe I wasnt really thinking out of the box. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of a situation in which a group of players come across someone who has already been clearly identified as an enemy. I think in a situation like that it would be a bit silly for the lone player to say it is unfair that he got ganked by people who are supposed to be trying to kill him anyway.
However in a game like DF things shouldnt be as black and white. Indeed I'm certainly not going to be attacking anyone who is a potential enemy simply because I can as thats not me either. I will leave that to the cretins and let their own bad reputation become their downfall. I plan on roleplaying rather than PKing as thats what the game should really be about.
Yep, I get that Neon.
Trust me, if a guy is a marked PK, known scammer, smack talker, or has a bad history with me or my guild, I'm gonna go for him. If a PK is haunting my lowbie areas and I'm close, I'm gonna go for him. If my guild calls another guild KOS, then I'm gonna go for them. If there is a guild raid against another guild town, I'm gonna go for them.
I'm just not randomly gonna gank random people on half health in the wilderness for their loot and, to be honest, I don't think I am alone in that play style either... The world just won't be full of people randomly attacking each other imo. There is too much else to do and too much to lose for most. I don't think that it will be nearly chaotic as most here seem to think.
The fact that you only get 1 character on a server means a lot. Reputation and guild reputation once again means a lot, and I love that.
I love the politics in open world PvP games btw
This game needs the builders, crafters, explorers, and socialisers as much as it needs the mad dogs. Thats just a fact.
What I agree it dosent need though, and I agree with you active PK guys 100% on this, is whiners and complainers. I don't expect to come into DF and change the game to anything but what it is. I know the kind of game that I am buying into, and I embrace it 100%
I know about 10k people from shadowbane who would kill u just for the fun of it. I know i will. Imo it will be a gankfest, especially with the meaning the word has nowadays.
You only need to look at the hostile behaviour of DF fans (and indeed those haters who end up playing) on these forums to know that it will be a complete gankfest. That will be fine for those who are looking for that, and will repel those more casual players. This will not be the only reason for Darkfall's low subscriber numbers once everyone has tried the free trial (if there even is one), but it will certainly be a major one.
Then again, depending on how little the impact of gear is on combat, it might not matter how much ganking there is. After all presumably you'll still be increasing your skills even though you're losing combat, once you're stripped down to your loincloth you won't be able to be looted any more, and if the info so far released is any indication (screenshots, beta 'leaks' etc) there might not be that much else to actually do in Darkfall apart from joining the brawl if reports of huge empty areas and lack of mob variety (except goblins, of course) are accurate.
So it looks like a choice between solo wandering through lonely empty wastelands or playing high-ping low-poly fantasy Counterstrike. Chuck Norris ftw...
Originally posted by khartman2005 Ultima Online launched with completely open pvp and look how that one ended. It was a gankfest and people started unsubscribing. They changed it and UO is still around today. I forsee Darkfall (if it does release and succeeds) will change the ruleset so that it isn't open PvP and they will do it sooner rather then later.
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
As for Darkfall, like I said, Massive MASSIVE world + harsh alignment penalties + no floating names/radar = less griefing.
Originally posted by SignusM Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Originally posted by SignusM Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
Subs were not tanking there was a slow but steady incline. The problem was EQ recieved more subs than UO. EA said hmm............ things started to change sadly. Subs began to incline even slower but still steady. UO was good as it was, it lost more people after trammel than it did before and this is fact. Trammel may have turned many away but as a whole, the game was still epicly good minus the trammel/fel split lol this is also fact to some atleast.
I must admit I've always though of gankers as little pussies that couldn't hack it in real pvp. Pvp is a risk, some like it some don't, but gankers just suck the life out of games. Rather like the stereotype bully on the playground taking every ones lunch money. I enjoy pvp, Not beating up lowbes . Guess we'll have to wait and see how well df handles things. I guess one thing is for sure , you're gonna die sometime from something.
Your thinking seems to be that the only real PvP is when all sides are even and everyone is just about equal in levels and gear etc. So if you play WAR as destro and you come across an order guy no matter the level you just let him walk on by? Hell no, he is the enemy you kill him without mercy. PvP is simply that, player vs. player. Even the bully on the playground would find it quite hard to bully if everyone else in the yard grouped up and beat the tar outta him.
Not at all , 5 of us, 1 of you , you die, no problems. I simply dont have alot of respect for say the high lv that goes to the newb area to prove how tuf they are. This is what i refer to as ganking, perhaps the new term would be griefers. Even though there may not be lv's , there will be a way to spot newbs, Even in rl you can spot newb troopers, leave em to the other newbs , unless it's an issue where they need to be terminated
And yea, I've let destro troops run by, They were to low, and were not even close to being an interesting fight. After you've done it a few years, you tend to want to kill targets that are somewhat interesting. It's not the kill, it's the fight, Course this doesn't hold true if i'm attacked 1st. But yea I tend to like battles that are somewhat equal, they're more fun, and isn't fun what gaming is all about?
I must admit I've always though of gankers as little pussies that couldn't hack it in real pvp. Pvp is a risk, some like it some don't, but gankers just suck the life out of games. Rather like the stereotype bully on the playground taking every ones lunch money. I enjoy pvp, Not beating up lowbes . Guess we'll have to wait and see how well df handles things. I guess one thing is for sure , you're gonna die sometime from something.
Your thinking seems to be that the only real PvP is when all sides are even and everyone is just about equal in levels and gear etc. So if you play WAR as destro and you come across an order guy no matter the level you just let him walk on by? Hell no, he is the enemy you kill him without mercy. PvP is simply that, player vs. player. Even the bully on the playground would find it quite hard to bully if everyone else in the yard grouped up and beat the tar outta him.
Not at all , 5 of us, 1 of you , you die, no problems. I simply dont have alot of respect for say the high lv that goes to the newb area to prove how tuf they are. This is what i refer to as ganking, perhaps the new term would be griefers. Even though there may not be lv's , there will be a way to spot newbs, Even in rl you can spot newb troopers, leave em to the other newbs , unless it's an issue where they need to be terminated
And yea, I've let destro troops run by, They were to low, and were not even close to being an interesting fight. After you've done it a few years, you tend to want to kill targets that are somewhat interesting. It's not the kill, it's the fight, Course this doesn't hold true if i'm attacked 1st. But yea I tend to like battles that are somewhat equal, they're more fun, and isn't fun what gaming is all about?
Well naturally good fights are more fun, doesn't mean that easy kills are not fun at all tho(well for me at least), an enemy is always an enemy
They have no reason to waste their reputation ganking some newb with no special items. That is to say they wont be allowed into cities, and they will be generally hated and hunted by the large organized empires. Anarchy is a very legitamte form of governmenmt have to suffer consequences even if they are not government imposed for their actions (assuming the actions can be traced to them). You're best chance is to join a strong guild who will make people think twice before they gank you, also I would advise reducing your risk for gank. I don't know hwo this game will permit this piece of advise, but i'm sure you understand. There will be pirates and gankers, there will also be bounty hunters after them and their gear will probably stink if they can't get access to the crafters fo the top guilds. Unless thier is a pirate city, but then just become a pirate. It all works out.
Not at all , 5 of us, 1 of you , you die, no problems. I simply dont have alot of respect for say the high lv that goes to the newb area to prove how tuf they are. This is what i refer to as ganking, perhaps the new term would be griefers. Even though there may not be lv's , there will be a way to spot newbs, Even in rl you can spot newb troopers, leave em to the other newbs , unless it's an issue where they need to be terminated And yea, I've let destro troops run by, They were to low, and were not even close to being an interesting fight. After you've done it a few years, you tend to want to kill targets that are somewhat interesting. It's not the kill, it's the fight, Course this doesn't hold true if i'm attacked 1st. But yea I tend to like battles that are somewhat equal, they're more fun, and isn't fun what gaming is all about?
I get what you are trying to say but that kind of thinking isn't really for a FFA PvP world. Your enemy is your enemy, no matter what level he is. You appear to be a neutral or anti-Pk, that is how you play. Others play different. There really is no such thing as ganking or griefing in a FFA game, the very nature of it being a Free For All pretty much says that anything goes. Ganking/Griefing/Zerging to me are concepts from PvE games that have PvP in them, or as we used to say on Darktide "Carebear Thinking".
There really is no right or wrong way to play, some will "Gank or Grief" and others will make it their mission to stop them. It is the great circle of balance in FFA games. Interesting that you would say that you think equal is more fun, specially since most fights in todays game are over within 15-20 seconds or so. Back in the dinosaur days you could have fights that lasted for 5-15 minutes. I have yet to find any real satisification or sense of accomplishment in today's PvP games, simpy because games today require no skill and don't last long. In the day of roots/stuns/mezzes/rezzes/stealth etc, fights are pretty lame. Today you make even one little mistake and you are dead where you stand, there is no leeway. In the games of old the fights were more forgiving, skill was a bigger deciding factor.
Despite the cries of gankfest, or bemoaning all the griefing people are expecting the game should do just fine. From my personal experience, in a FFA world Politics takes a much grander stage than in regular Pvp games. Within the first months you will know who the RPK guilds are and who the Anti and Neutrals are. It will then be a matter of joining up with whichever one suits your playstyle, I don't foresee 1000 tiny guilds per server like in other games. In a FFA world you really have to pick your guild with care, as your reputation depends on it, and dare I say your very life.
Originally posted by khartman2005 Ultima Online launched with completely open pvp and look how that one ended. It was a gankfest and people started unsubscribing. They changed it and UO is still around today. I forsee Darkfall (if it does release and succeeds) will change the ruleset so that it isn't open PvP and they will do it sooner rather then later.
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
UO had a steadily increasing subscriber base until Renaissance came out. The Renaissance expansion was released in April of 2000. A few months later there was a sharp increase in subscribers and then a gradual increase over the next few months.
Then in late 2001 players started leaving and we see the first dip in subscribers since UO was released. So, in truth, UO was turned from a competative PvP game into a grindfest and people started unsubscribing.
No one can really say what would have happend with UO if the Renaissance expansion had never come out. I can tell you one thing though. I personally would still be playing it.
Umm... you do realize that mmogchart.com hasn't been updated in ages and even when it was updated on a regular basis the only numbers that were worth anything were the official press release numbers.
The "educated guesses" numbers were completely bogus.
The "insider sources" numbers were no different than the "educated guesses".
So yeah, the numbers for UO that came from official EA press releases... those are probably pretty accurate. Any of the other numbers? They aren't "proof" of anything other than "Sir" Bruce being able to put a number into a spreadsheet cell.
Originally posted by SignusM Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices.
Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all.
That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not.
That can never happen again. Ever.
Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more.
I enjoyed the old pre-trammel UO, and I intend to enjoy darkfall for the same reasons. But having been there for pre-trammel UO, I am not going to believe some excel spreadsheet based on a whole lot of questionable sources over my own personal experiences. Seeing is believing.
Trammel was opened as a reaction to declining subscriptions, period. I saw the declining server pops before trammel, and I saw the increasing server pops after trammel. Ganking WAS driving a significant portion of players off, it would be stupid to argue otherwise for anyone that was actually there. I don't really care for proof one way or another, because the only proof that matters, is first hand proof.
Now that being said, UO I think was not as prepared to deal with the situation as Darkfall is due to game design. Freedoms were good but consequences of those freedoms were pretty weak in UO. It was easy to get away with anything scot free. There were tons of easy loopholes. Multiple characters per server is just one of many. I do not believe that things played out in UO the way they will come to play out in Darkfall. I suspect (and hope for) a greater ability for players to police themselves, and no easy outs for transgressions.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Originally posted by SignusM Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices.
Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all.
That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not.
That can never happen again. Ever.
Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more.
But otherwise, no.
If you had said FFA PvP with full loot you would have had a valid opinion. Does not mean you are right but, well you know everyone is intitled to there opinion.
But FFA PvP by itself?
Some would Argue that AoC's most populated servers are it's PvP servers and that those servers are FFA PvP lol.
EvE online is something we must overlook to take your opinion as Valid as well.
Lineage 2 as well.
Even UO had to open up a FFA PvP server.
FFA PvP isn't really this issue it's the full loot that turn some off. But even then you underestimate the number of people that are interested in it, not only are they interested in it but it is what makes PvP meaningful to them. Risk vs Reward seems like a lost concept now days.
I enjoyed the old pre-trammel UO, and I intend to enjoy darkfall for the same reasons. But having been there for pre-trammel UO, I am not going to believe some excel spreadsheet based on a whole lot of questionable sources over my own personal experiences. Seeing is believing. Trammel was opened as a reaction to declining subscriptions, period. I saw the declining server pops before trammel, and I saw the increasing server pops after trammel. Ganking WAS driving a significant portion of players off, it would be stupid to argue otherwise for anyone that was actually there. I don't really care for proof one way or another, because the only proof that matters, is first hand proof. Now that being said, UO I think was not as prepared to deal with the situation as Darkfall is due to game design. Freedoms were good but consequences of those freedoms were pretty weak in UO. It was easy to get away with anything scot free. There were tons of easy loopholes. Multiple characters per server is just one of many. I do not believe that things played out in UO the way they will come to play out in Darkfall. I suspect (and hope for) a greater ability for players to police themselves, and no easy outs for transgressions.
I agree I will stick with my own personal experiences with UO vs a spreadsheet or others opinions. I was there from launch till last year. Never saw a decline of server pop until later on after Trammel. The thing that was debatable was wether or not the decline was due to those leaving finaly fed up with trammel or w/e or was it just because UO was getting up there in years.
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices. Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all. That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not. That can never happen again. Ever. Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more. But otherwise, no.
You say there are umpteen million MMORPG's, most of which have no FFA PvP, some with no PvP. So what you are saying is that with the over 20 million+ online gamers subscribing to the major games no worthwhile percentage wants a FFA game? That is ludicrous. Noone HAS to engage in FFA, but there are those that choose too and others that want to try it out. You are taking YOUR personal opinions on a FFA game and trying to blanket the entire gaming population with the same thoughts. Because you might not like FFA all of a sudden it would take the restart of human civilization for others to HAVE to deal with it.
Even in the old school games you didn't HAVE to deal with FFA, you had the choice. Same thing goes for today, if you don't like FFA then don't play a game that is nothing but FFA or don't play on a FFA server in a game that has regular ones. It truly amazes me how people are still bashing FFA when almost every game that comes out now is catered to the PvE or mild PvP crowd, damn at least give us one game that has what WE want. Noone is being forced to play DF, if you don't like the FFA aspect then play the umpteen million other games that don't offer it.
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices. Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all. That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not. That can never happen again. Ever. Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more. But otherwise, no.
You say there are umpteen million MMORPG's, most of which have no FFA PvP, some with no PvP. So what you are saying is that with the over 20 million+ online gamers subscribing to the major games no worthwhile percentage wants a FFA game? That is ludicrous. Noone HAS to engage in FFA, but there are those that choose too and others that want to try it out. You are taking YOUR personal opinions on a FFA game and trying to blanket the entire gaming population with the same thoughts. Because you might not like FFA all of a sudden it would take the restart of human civilization for others to HAVE to deal with it.
Even in the old school games you didn't HAVE to deal with FFA, you had the choice. Same thing goes for today, if you don't like FFA then don't play a game that is nothing but FFA or don't play on a FFA server in a game that has regular ones. It truly amazes me how people are still bashing FFA when almost every game that comes out now is catered to the PvE or mild PvP crowd, damn at least give us one game that has what WE want. Noone is being forced to play DF, if you don't like the FFA aspect then play the umpteen million other games that don't offer it.
No, you missed the point entirely.
I was saying that UO was unique in the history of gaming, because it was an FFA PvP game that had hardcore Pk'ers and Carebears in the same game.
Why? Carebears had no where else to go, and it was really cool to be able to play an online game with otehr people.
THAT is what made pre-Trammel UO such a special experience, not just the fact that it had FFA Pvp in the game.
That sort of thing can never happen again. If you like PvE, but not PvP you just go play a PvE game, there are hundreds of them now.
Nothing to do with my preference for PvP or PvE, or how many people want to play a PvP game, or what kind of game you would liek to play, etc., etc.
If you play an FFA PvP game, it will be becasue you like FFA PvP games. Once upon a time, that was not necessarily the case.
I enjoyed the old pre-trammel UO, and I intend to enjoy darkfall for the same reasons. But having been there for pre-trammel UO, I am not going to believe some excel spreadsheet based on a whole lot of questionable sources over my own personal experiences. Seeing is believing. Trammel was opened as a reaction to declining subscriptions, period. I saw the declining server pops before trammel, and I saw the increasing server pops after trammel. Ganking WAS driving a significant portion of players off, it would be stupid to argue otherwise for anyone that was actually there. I don't really care for proof one way or another, because the only proof that matters, is first hand proof. Now that being said, UO I think was not as prepared to deal with the situation as Darkfall is due to game design. Freedoms were good but consequences of those freedoms were pretty weak in UO. It was easy to get away with anything scot free. There were tons of easy loopholes. Multiple characters per server is just one of many. I do not believe that things played out in UO the way they will come to play out in Darkfall. I suspect (and hope for) a greater ability for players to police themselves, and no easy outs for transgressions.
THIS
I also agree with your analysis at the end in why there will be some significant differences between how Pre-Trammel UO worked and how DarkFall will work. I think that some will both love and hate that part about DarkFall. Guess we'll just have to wait and see who is who.
No, you missed the point entirely. I was saying that UO was unique in the history of gaming, because it was an FFA PvP game that had hardcore Pk'ers and Carebears in the same game. Why? Carebears had no where else to go, and it was really cool to be able to play an online game with otehr people. THAT is what made pre-Trammel UO such a special experience, not just the fact that it had FFA Pvp in the game. That sort of thing can never happen again. If you like PvE, but not PvP you just go play a PvE game, there are hundreds of them now. Nothing to do with my preference for PvP or PvE, or how many people want to play a PvP game, or what kind of game you would liek to play, etc., etc. If you play an FFA PvP game, it will be becasue you like FFA PvP games. Once upon a time, that was not necessarily the case.
UO released in what late 97, sure it was a PvP game. Hell at that time that was all you got or could get, so noone really knew any different. Fast forward a year or so later and EQ and AC released offering both FFA and Regular servers, hell one could say Trammel was UO's way of keeping people that finally had choices as far as not having to FFA. Just speculation on my part of course. So for pre-trammel you had options, AC, EQ and UO. UO was not necessarily unique because it had both in the same game, it might of been the first but not unique by any stretch of the imagination. AC on regular servers also had hardcore PvP'ers and Carebears occupying the same world. As far as "Carebears" not having anywhere else to go, they weren't necessarily carebears. Since there was only one game offering one thing they were all simply PvPers, of varying extremes but still PvPers. The carebear aspect didn't arrive until games came out offering the choice of which type of gameplay you wanted.
It could easily happen again, while you can probably never remake the great games of the past you can create a game based on the mechanics. Today's games say you cannot go here cause it is to scary and dangerous, or you have to play this class and that is all you will ever be, or we will tell you who your enemy is etc. DF can easily do it again, by simply offering a choice of server types like AC did. Regular servers where you can choose to go RED or stay WHITE, or making it so if you die you don't drop your loot or incur a death penalty of any kind, and then a hardcore/extreme where you are always RED and do drop loot and/or incur death penalties. I always thought that developers should treat their regular and PvP servers as two different entities, and adjust the content accordingly. It might be time consuming and expensive but think it would be cheaper than having to make a new game.
I did reread your post and it became obvious that you were talking about the time frame from UO live until EQ and AC launched. So my reponse was a tad skewed as it wasn't geared towards the specific time frame which made it a bit off base, my apologies. I am also no expert on UO or EQ as I never played and I am guessing at the time frames, but think they are pretty close. I do enjoy bumping into other MMO dinosaurs that remember the glory days, and am glad that I will have the opportunity to play against them in a game like we all knew and loved.
There's not really a point in having mutliple servers with different gameplay types.
I'm one of the many UO players from the day it launched. Part of what made the game so good was that you had every style of player on the server. For every villian, there was a hero, etc... Some people just liked to craft and sell those items. The hero's would protect them while they mined, etc (or even the crafters would pay people for protection while they did it), the villians would pick new targets or try their luck (or even try to extort money from you, it sounds bad, but it was FUN! Call your friends, they show up, slay him... problem solved).
While getting killed and losing all of your stuff sucked (as I died many many times), it's what made the game FUN. Just like now, there are areas of my city I won't walk in without backup... if I did, I almost deserve what I get, because I know better. The same goes for the game, you'll learn where the bad guys hang out, if you choose to go there, it's your fault.
You'll also know where the good guys hang out and who to call for help. You'll make friends who you can rely on, join guilds whose sole purpose is to help those in need and know you always have backup. That even if you do get ganked, your guild will be on them... bounties on their heads, etc...
So while I can understand people don't want to get ganked as soon as they are 6 feet from the newbie city gates (and I'm one of you)... It's not as bad as it seems. Those that have been around long enough (UO for example) know how this works and how it can work. It's a society, there are good people and bad people. People that you'll agree with and people that you won't. For many of us, that's what makes it fun and why we're interested in this game.
Comments
me : Err guys... look behind you, honest..
me : .....................zoik.....................
How do you "distract" some gankers? I recall my days in Neocron. All of a sudden a group of tanks would be on top of you, gun in your face....pew pew pew >>>>>> dead. You didn't even have time to blink half of the time, let alone enter a dialogue with them in a bid to distract them.
/shrug , maybe Darkfall lets you perform magic tricks?
It is really sad that I have to explain this to you. You could distract a group in any number of ways. Shooting a spell at them and running away in the opposite direction, kiting them, talking to them ect... If a group of people are on top of you killing you without your knowing, well /shrug you being gimp isnt anything the game can fix.
Ultima Online launched with completely open pvp and look how that one ended. It was a gankfest and people started unsubscribing. They changed it and UO is still around today.
I forsee Darkfall (if it does release and succeeds) will change the ruleset so that it isn't open PvP and they will do it sooner rather then later.
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
UO had a steadily increasing subscriber base until Renaissance came out. The Renaissance expansion was released in April of 2000. A few months later there was a sharp increase in subscribers and then a gradual increase over the next few months.
Then in late 2001 players started leaving and we see the first dip in subscribers since UO was released. So, in truth, UO was turned from a competative PvP game into a grindfest and people started unsubscribing.
And unlike your claim, I have proof.
No one can really say what would have happend with UO if the Renaissance expansion had never come out. I can tell you one thing though. I personally would still be playing it.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Because of the FFA PvP without safe zones, I dont expect DF will get many players.
You only need a few griefers that camp the newb starting zones to frustrate new players enough to stop playing.
I for one would be happy to protect newbs from time to time, but it wont be always possible. This will be again the typically stupid unbalanced crap where the players who raced to max lvl have fun and the newbs who start a bit later get frustrated, because they wont get the fair chance like the early access crowd did.
Griefers thrive on this. All they do is preventing others to have any fair fighting chance at all. Thats what they enjoy. Any game that will support this kind of cowardly behaviour with game mechanics will never get a large crowd. Simply because of the few cowards that like to bully newbs.
The division people have to understand in regards to games with really open PvP is between ganking happening and the game become a gankfest.
There will be ganking, - lots of it even, without any doubt. However, in an environment with an open world, no raid content and the like, things like this tend to even out pretty well.
Gankers hanging out near newbie spots 24/7 will automatically attract their "natural" coutnerpart for example. The only reason why you don't see that behaviour in games with some halfarsed, not thought through implementation of open world PvP is the fact that the "good" high level players are having other stuff to do, - all that precious endgame content, all those 12 hour raids hardly leave room for taking care of wiping a low level area of high level gankers and griefers. In a sandbox environment, this is different, - it's actually a part of endgame for everybody involved, an integral part of the fun.
People will move out and dedicatedly hunt down those fellows. - That won't be any guarantee for low levels not to be killed, but it will make it bearable for all those, coming with a fitting mindset for a game like this. You will have to be on your toes at all times, watch your back and be able to dust yourself off and go on in the event of being killed by others, maybe much more experienced characters.
Believing the lack of levels in DF being some sort of granted possibility of self defense in any case is naive, - no matter how high or low the impact of trained skills and gear might be, it will still be enough to leave a really fresh character without any chance against some highly experienced one. But there are others around, - at all times, and not just when they have a few spare mintues in between raids. There will be roaming bands that go after each other. There will be clans that make it their taks to keep control of certain parts of the world, not only by killing everyone trespassing, but also by allowing passage and making it safe.
If you add to that an alignment system and penalties, I'm pretty sure it can work out (I won't say it will, for that I don't have enoguh information on how things will look like in reality).
Be aware a game like this is NOT for everybody. You will have to want the extra thrill of being vulnerable wherever you are, if not, maybe test it, but don't expect it to be to your liking.
However, there are enough players to like that sort of environment much better than game dynamics taking over everything for them to allow for a game like this to live. The open world PvP was NOT what made UO loose numbers, nor was it what made for example Shadowbane loose numbers. The game has to work out and certain core aspects of especially the endgame (like sieges) have to be implemented in a way to make them not to much of a strain in the long run. Open world PvP and ganking won't be a problem then.
How would you define a lowbie in Darkfall? How would you spot one?
Also why is a ganker a "little pussie"? A ganker is just someone who has an advantage and uses it to crush their enemy. Sounds like common sense to me. You can wander around trying to be a gentleman asking people for a fair fight if you like but dont expect others to do the same.
"Excuse me sir Orc I believe you have an unfair advantage. Your skill with that axe is clearly superior to my skill with this dagger and thats damn unfair. I also see that you have a few friends with you who also intend to kick my head in. Now thats very unsporting of you. I really must insist that you do the honourable thing and either fight me on your own while your friends stand back and watch or you allow me to call a few friends of my own to assist me. They can be here in about 20 minutes if you dont mind waiting. Otherwise you are not engaging me in the correct PvP protocols as stated in section 12b of the PvP Tactical Manual and that would therefore entitle me to call you "A little pussie who cannot hack real PvP" because everyone knows that real PvP is always equal and fair........
Oh you swine! You just killed me without giving me a chance to defeat you. I'm calling my mum!! Bwaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
hehe funny post Neon, but I think we see PvP a little differently. Neither is right or wrong of course, it's just perspective and preference.
If, in RL, I saw 5 guys start on 1 guy outside a pub and kick the crap outta him, I would think they were weak. If 2 guys mug another guy in RL, I think thats just weak. I think the same about zergers and gankers in PvP. It's just me.
For instance, If I see, while on some journey, some random guy who I have never met or heard of before siting and resting after fighting a mob, will I kill him for no reason while he is weak? Probably not... Thats not me.
Don't confuse this with weakness though, like I have have said before, I wouldnt be here if I wasnt up for the fight
Everyone, indeed, has the freedom to play DF as they see fit, and I love that about the game. I would hate to see rulesets to stop it happening. Indeed, the motivation for me in these games comes from putting down the 'mad dogs' that see the fact that just because you can do something, you should do something.
It takes all types to make PvP games work I guess
Actually I agree with that. When I typed that post I believe I wasnt really thinking out of the box. I suppose I was thinking along the lines of a situation in which a group of players come across someone who has already been clearly identified as an enemy. I think in a situation like that it would be a bit silly for the lone player to say it is unfair that he got ganked by people who are supposed to be trying to kill him anyway.
However in a game like DF things shouldnt be as black and white. Indeed I'm certainly not going to be attacking anyone who is a potential enemy simply because I can as thats not me either. I will leave that to the cretins and let their own bad reputation become their downfall. I plan on roleplaying rather than PKing as thats what the game should really be about.
Yep, I get that Neon.
Trust me, if a guy is a marked PK, known scammer, smack talker, or has a bad history with me or my guild, I'm gonna go for him. If a PK is haunting my lowbie areas and I'm close, I'm gonna go for him. If my guild calls another guild KOS, then I'm gonna go for them. If there is a guild raid against another guild town, I'm gonna go for them.
I'm just not randomly gonna gank random people on half health in the wilderness for their loot and, to be honest, I don't think I am alone in that play style either... The world just won't be full of people randomly attacking each other imo. There is too much else to do and too much to lose for most. I don't think that it will be nearly chaotic as most here seem to think.
The fact that you only get 1 character on a server means a lot. Reputation and guild reputation once again means a lot, and I love that.
I love the politics in open world PvP games btw
This game needs the builders, crafters, explorers, and socialisers as much as it needs the mad dogs. Thats just a fact.
What I agree it dosent need though, and I agree with you active PK guys 100% on this, is whiners and complainers. I don't expect to come into DF and change the game to anything but what it is. I know the kind of game that I am buying into, and I embrace it 100%
I know about 10k people from shadowbane who would kill u just for the fun of it. I know i will. Imo it will be a gankfest, especially with the meaning the word has nowadays.
You only need to look at the hostile behaviour of DF fans (and indeed those haters who end up playing) on these forums to know that it will be a complete gankfest. That will be fine for those who are looking for that, and will repel those more casual players. This will not be the only reason for Darkfall's low subscriber numbers once everyone has tried the free trial (if there even is one), but it will certainly be a major one.
Then again, depending on how little the impact of gear is on combat, it might not matter how much ganking there is. After all presumably you'll still be increasing your skills even though you're losing combat, once you're stripped down to your loincloth you won't be able to be looted any more, and if the info so far released is any indication (screenshots, beta 'leaks' etc) there might not be that much else to actually do in Darkfall apart from joining the brawl if reports of huge empty areas and lack of mob variety (except goblins, of course) are accurate.
So it looks like a choice between solo wandering through lonely empty wastelands or playing high-ping low-poly fantasy Counterstrike. Chuck Norris ftw...
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
Subs were tanking, as soon as Trammel hit, they went back up. We all miss the old UO, but the ganking WAS out of control.
As for Darkfall, like I said, Massive MASSIVE world + harsh alignment penalties + no floating names/radar = less griefing.
Darkfall Travelogues!
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
Subs were not tanking there was a slow but steady incline. The problem was EQ recieved more subs than UO. EA said hmm............ things started to change sadly. Subs began to incline even slower but still steady. UO was good as it was, it lost more people after trammel than it did before and this is fact. Trammel may have turned many away but as a whole, the game was still epicly good minus the trammel/fel split lol this is also fact to some atleast.
Your thinking seems to be that the only real PvP is when all sides are even and everyone is just about equal in levels and gear etc. So if you play WAR as destro and you come across an order guy no matter the level you just let him walk on by? Hell no, he is the enemy you kill him without mercy. PvP is simply that, player vs. player. Even the bully on the playground would find it quite hard to bully if everyone else in the yard grouped up and beat the tar outta him.
Not at all , 5 of us, 1 of you , you die, no problems. I simply dont have alot of respect for say the high lv that goes to the newb area to prove how tuf they are. This is what i refer to as ganking, perhaps the new term would be griefers. Even though there may not be lv's , there will be a way to spot newbs, Even in rl you can spot newb troopers, leave em to the other newbs , unless it's an issue where they need to be terminated
And yea, I've let destro troops run by, They were to low, and were not even close to being an interesting fight. After you've done it a few years, you tend to want to kill targets that are somewhat interesting. It's not the kill, it's the fight, Course this doesn't hold true if i'm attacked 1st. But yea I tend to like battles that are somewhat equal, they're more fun, and isn't fun what gaming is all about?
Your thinking seems to be that the only real PvP is when all sides are even and everyone is just about equal in levels and gear etc. So if you play WAR as destro and you come across an order guy no matter the level you just let him walk on by? Hell no, he is the enemy you kill him without mercy. PvP is simply that, player vs. player. Even the bully on the playground would find it quite hard to bully if everyone else in the yard grouped up and beat the tar outta him.
Not at all , 5 of us, 1 of you , you die, no problems. I simply dont have alot of respect for say the high lv that goes to the newb area to prove how tuf they are. This is what i refer to as ganking, perhaps the new term would be griefers. Even though there may not be lv's , there will be a way to spot newbs, Even in rl you can spot newb troopers, leave em to the other newbs , unless it's an issue where they need to be terminated
And yea, I've let destro troops run by, They were to low, and were not even close to being an interesting fight. After you've done it a few years, you tend to want to kill targets that are somewhat interesting. It's not the kill, it's the fight, Course this doesn't hold true if i'm attacked 1st. But yea I tend to like battles that are somewhat equal, they're more fun, and isn't fun what gaming is all about?
Well naturally good fights are more fun, doesn't mean that easy kills are not fun at all tho(well for me at least), an enemy is always an enemy
Darkfall Unholy Wars:
Zushakon Odi
They have no reason to waste their reputation ganking some newb with no special items. That is to say they wont be allowed into cities, and they will be generally hated and hunted by the large organized empires. Anarchy is a very legitamte form of governmenmt have to suffer consequences even if they are not government imposed for their actions (assuming the actions can be traced to them). You're best chance is to join a strong guild who will make people think twice before they gank you, also I would advise reducing your risk for gank. I don't know hwo this game will permit this piece of advise, but i'm sure you understand. There will be pirates and gankers, there will also be bounty hunters after them and their gear will probably stink if they can't get access to the crafters fo the top guilds. Unless thier is a pirate city, but then just become a pirate. It all works out.
I get what you are trying to say but that kind of thinking isn't really for a FFA PvP world. Your enemy is your enemy, no matter what level he is. You appear to be a neutral or anti-Pk, that is how you play. Others play different. There really is no such thing as ganking or griefing in a FFA game, the very nature of it being a Free For All pretty much says that anything goes. Ganking/Griefing/Zerging to me are concepts from PvE games that have PvP in them, or as we used to say on Darktide "Carebear Thinking".
There really is no right or wrong way to play, some will "Gank or Grief" and others will make it their mission to stop them. It is the great circle of balance in FFA games. Interesting that you would say that you think equal is more fun, specially since most fights in todays game are over within 15-20 seconds or so. Back in the dinosaur days you could have fights that lasted for 5-15 minutes. I have yet to find any real satisification or sense of accomplishment in today's PvP games, simpy because games today require no skill and don't last long. In the day of roots/stuns/mezzes/rezzes/stealth etc, fights are pretty lame. Today you make even one little mistake and you are dead where you stand, there is no leeway. In the games of old the fights were more forgiving, skill was a bigger deciding factor.
Despite the cries of gankfest, or bemoaning all the griefing people are expecting the game should do just fine. From my personal experience, in a FFA world Politics takes a much grander stage than in regular Pvp games. Within the first months you will know who the RPK guilds are and who the Anti and Neutrals are. It will then be a matter of joining up with whichever one suits your playstyle, I don't foresee 1000 tiny guilds per server like in other games. In a FFA world you really have to pick your guild with care, as your reputation depends on it, and dare I say your very life.
Do you have proof of the text in red? Or did you just see someone else post it and copied them?
UO had a steadily increasing subscriber base until Renaissance came out. The Renaissance expansion was released in April of 2000. A few months later there was a sharp increase in subscribers and then a gradual increase over the next few months.
Then in late 2001 players started leaving and we see the first dip in subscribers since UO was released. So, in truth, UO was turned from a competative PvP game into a grindfest and people started unsubscribing.
And unlike your claim,I have proof.
No one can really say what would have happend with UO if the Renaissance expansion had never come out. I can tell you one thing though. I personally would still be playing it.
Umm... you do realize that mmogchart.com hasn't been updated in ages and even when it was updated on a regular basis the only numbers that were worth anything were the official press release numbers.
The "educated guesses" numbers were completely bogus.
The "insider sources" numbers were no different than the "educated guesses".
So yeah, the numbers for UO that came from official EA press releases... those are probably pretty accurate. Any of the other numbers? They aren't "proof" of anything other than "Sir" Bruce being able to put a number into a spreadsheet cell.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices.
Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all.
That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not.
That can never happen again. Ever.
Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more.
But otherwise, no.
I enjoyed the old pre-trammel UO, and I intend to enjoy darkfall for the same reasons. But having been there for pre-trammel UO, I am not going to believe some excel spreadsheet based on a whole lot of questionable sources over my own personal experiences. Seeing is believing.
Trammel was opened as a reaction to declining subscriptions, period. I saw the declining server pops before trammel, and I saw the increasing server pops after trammel. Ganking WAS driving a significant portion of players off, it would be stupid to argue otherwise for anyone that was actually there. I don't really care for proof one way or another, because the only proof that matters, is first hand proof.
Now that being said, UO I think was not as prepared to deal with the situation as Darkfall is due to game design. Freedoms were good but consequences of those freedoms were pretty weak in UO. It was easy to get away with anything scot free. There were tons of easy loopholes. Multiple characters per server is just one of many. I do not believe that things played out in UO the way they will come to play out in Darkfall. I suspect (and hope for) a greater ability for players to police themselves, and no easy outs for transgressions.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so this will be the last thing I post about UO subscription numbers but it's just a little maddening when this false statement keeps getting passed around on these forums like it's a fact.
Show me some proof that the subs were tanking. You have none, because this is just a false statement made up and then copied over and over on these forums until people actually believe it. If you actually read the rest of my last post you can see I posted a link to the subscription chart that clearly shows UO subs NEVER went down until after Trammel.
/sigh
It is moot. You can never return to a day when people that wish to play an online game have to engage in FFA PvP because there are no other choices.
Today there is umpteen million MMORPGs, including P2P and F2P games, most of which have no FFA PvP, some of which have no PvP at all.
That is what made UO pre-trammel unique in gaming. It was an Online game, one of the first of it's kind, and players were so intrigued with the idea of playing a game online wiht other players, they were willing to put up with FFA PvP whether they liked it or not.
That can never happen again. Ever.
Ok, I take that back. It is possible that there will be a nuclear holocaust, or aliens will invade the earth and ravage the planet, causing civilization to fall. Then thousands of years later, Civilization will re-emerge from the New Dark Ages, Man will re-invent the computer, online gaming will be born once more, and the first big online game will include FFA PvP, so we get UO pre-Trammel style gaming once more.
But otherwise, no.
If you had said FFA PvP with full loot you would have had a valid opinion. Does not mean you are right but, well you know everyone is intitled to there opinion.
But FFA PvP by itself?
Some would Argue that AoC's most populated servers are it's PvP servers and that those servers are FFA PvP lol.
EvE online is something we must overlook to take your opinion as Valid as well.
Lineage 2 as well.
Even UO had to open up a FFA PvP server.
FFA PvP isn't really this issue it's the full loot that turn some off. But even then you underestimate the number of people that are interested in it, not only are they interested in it but it is what makes PvP meaningful to them. Risk vs Reward seems like a lost concept now days.
I agree I will stick with my own personal experiences with UO vs a spreadsheet or others opinions. I was there from launch till last year. Never saw a decline of server pop until later on after Trammel. The thing that was debatable was wether or not the decline was due to those leaving finaly fed up with trammel or w/e or was it just because UO was getting up there in years.
You say there are umpteen million MMORPG's, most of which have no FFA PvP, some with no PvP. So what you are saying is that with the over 20 million+ online gamers subscribing to the major games no worthwhile percentage wants a FFA game? That is ludicrous. Noone HAS to engage in FFA, but there are those that choose too and others that want to try it out. You are taking YOUR personal opinions on a FFA game and trying to blanket the entire gaming population with the same thoughts. Because you might not like FFA all of a sudden it would take the restart of human civilization for others to HAVE to deal with it.
Even in the old school games you didn't HAVE to deal with FFA, you had the choice. Same thing goes for today, if you don't like FFA then don't play a game that is nothing but FFA or don't play on a FFA server in a game that has regular ones. It truly amazes me how people are still bashing FFA when almost every game that comes out now is catered to the PvE or mild PvP crowd, damn at least give us one game that has what WE want. Noone is being forced to play DF, if you don't like the FFA aspect then play the umpteen million other games that don't offer it.
You say there are umpteen million MMORPG's, most of which have no FFA PvP, some with no PvP. So what you are saying is that with the over 20 million+ online gamers subscribing to the major games no worthwhile percentage wants a FFA game? That is ludicrous. Noone HAS to engage in FFA, but there are those that choose too and others that want to try it out. You are taking YOUR personal opinions on a FFA game and trying to blanket the entire gaming population with the same thoughts. Because you might not like FFA all of a sudden it would take the restart of human civilization for others to HAVE to deal with it.
Even in the old school games you didn't HAVE to deal with FFA, you had the choice. Same thing goes for today, if you don't like FFA then don't play a game that is nothing but FFA or don't play on a FFA server in a game that has regular ones. It truly amazes me how people are still bashing FFA when almost every game that comes out now is catered to the PvE or mild PvP crowd, damn at least give us one game that has what WE want. Noone is being forced to play DF, if you don't like the FFA aspect then play the umpteen million other games that don't offer it.
No, you missed the point entirely.
I was saying that UO was unique in the history of gaming, because it was an FFA PvP game that had hardcore Pk'ers and Carebears in the same game.
Why? Carebears had no where else to go, and it was really cool to be able to play an online game with otehr people.
THAT is what made pre-Trammel UO such a special experience, not just the fact that it had FFA Pvp in the game.
That sort of thing can never happen again. If you like PvE, but not PvP you just go play a PvE game, there are hundreds of them now.
Nothing to do with my preference for PvP or PvE, or how many people want to play a PvP game, or what kind of game you would liek to play, etc., etc.
If you play an FFA PvP game, it will be becasue you like FFA PvP games. Once upon a time, that was not necessarily the case.
THIS
I also agree with your analysis at the end in why there will be some significant differences between how Pre-Trammel UO worked and how DarkFall will work. I think that some will both love and hate that part about DarkFall. Guess we'll just have to wait and see who is who.
UO released in what late 97, sure it was a PvP game. Hell at that time that was all you got or could get, so noone really knew any different. Fast forward a year or so later and EQ and AC released offering both FFA and Regular servers, hell one could say Trammel was UO's way of keeping people that finally had choices as far as not having to FFA. Just speculation on my part of course. So for pre-trammel you had options, AC, EQ and UO. UO was not necessarily unique because it had both in the same game, it might of been the first but not unique by any stretch of the imagination. AC on regular servers also had hardcore PvP'ers and Carebears occupying the same world. As far as "Carebears" not having anywhere else to go, they weren't necessarily carebears. Since there was only one game offering one thing they were all simply PvPers, of varying extremes but still PvPers. The carebear aspect didn't arrive until games came out offering the choice of which type of gameplay you wanted.
It could easily happen again, while you can probably never remake the great games of the past you can create a game based on the mechanics. Today's games say you cannot go here cause it is to scary and dangerous, or you have to play this class and that is all you will ever be, or we will tell you who your enemy is etc. DF can easily do it again, by simply offering a choice of server types like AC did. Regular servers where you can choose to go RED or stay WHITE, or making it so if you die you don't drop your loot or incur a death penalty of any kind, and then a hardcore/extreme where you are always RED and do drop loot and/or incur death penalties. I always thought that developers should treat their regular and PvP servers as two different entities, and adjust the content accordingly. It might be time consuming and expensive but think it would be cheaper than having to make a new game.
I did reread your post and it became obvious that you were talking about the time frame from UO live until EQ and AC launched. So my reponse was a tad skewed as it wasn't geared towards the specific time frame which made it a bit off base, my apologies. I am also no expert on UO or EQ as I never played and I am guessing at the time frames, but think they are pretty close. I do enjoy bumping into other MMO dinosaurs that remember the glory days, and am glad that I will have the opportunity to play against them in a game like we all knew and loved.
There's not really a point in having mutliple servers with different gameplay types.
I'm one of the many UO players from the day it launched. Part of what made the game so good was that you had every style of player on the server. For every villian, there was a hero, etc... Some people just liked to craft and sell those items. The hero's would protect them while they mined, etc (or even the crafters would pay people for protection while they did it), the villians would pick new targets or try their luck (or even try to extort money from you, it sounds bad, but it was FUN! Call your friends, they show up, slay him... problem solved).
While getting killed and losing all of your stuff sucked (as I died many many times), it's what made the game FUN. Just like now, there are areas of my city I won't walk in without backup... if I did, I almost deserve what I get, because I know better. The same goes for the game, you'll learn where the bad guys hang out, if you choose to go there, it's your fault.
You'll also know where the good guys hang out and who to call for help. You'll make friends who you can rely on, join guilds whose sole purpose is to help those in need and know you always have backup. That even if you do get ganked, your guild will be on them... bounties on their heads, etc...
So while I can understand people don't want to get ganked as soon as they are 6 feet from the newbie city gates (and I'm one of you)... It's not as bad as it seems. Those that have been around long enough (UO for example) know how this works and how it can work. It's a society, there are good people and bad people. People that you'll agree with and people that you won't. For many of us, that's what makes it fun and why we're interested in this game.
-Trekkan
Just For Fun Gaming
WWW.JFFGAMING.COM