Regardless Raph, no worries and I was not trying to attack you I am just not a fan of the games you have 'helped' make and as I told Bill years ago about a mutual friend, it is a group that creates and only individuals that claim. As you said before everyone can see what you are working on once you (and the team) are ready.
UO nor Wurm are inspirations for Minecraft. When asked over and over and over UO nor Wurm is ever mentioned about Minecraft. Other games are mentioned but not either of those. Why is that? Rolf was a big fan of older MMOs and was aiming ro make a Western MMORPG. Persson was not influenced by his help on Wurm anymore than Miyamoto used Mario as an inspiration for Pikmin. Just ridiculous. Not every game made is influenced by your digital co-parented child from 20+ years ago. Let it go.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No shortage of references when I google, but it's not worth arguing, since it has little bearing on the bulk of the thread.
Third, I was wondering if we could get your opinions on combat mechanics? I've read ur books and your blog but combat mechanics is something you've been very quiet about. You've been more interested in the effects of combat, rather than the combat itself.
We seem to be living in an age of action combat. Internet speeds have gotten fast enough to support action combat and so it's everywhere. However, I am of the opinion that it's not a good choice for a long running MMO. I feel that action combat is too shallow to keep players engaged long term. In addition, that shallowness means that teamwork is also going to be easier which leads to reduced community. I know that tactical combat (like ur typical tab-target mmo) doesn't automatically mean it has depth, there are plenty of shallow games like SWTOR, but at least tactical combat has a greater chance of being deep.
I know you can't really tell us what ur new game is gonna have, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on action vs tactical combat, depth vs complexity etc!
Well, tab-targeting was of course the graphical adaptation of MUD combat, really. MUD combat was the way it was because of lag. You started combat, you did attacks on a fixed rhythm, and you dropped in occasional special moves. In the Diku family of MUDs, the special moves were all about pushing opponents into particular states, such as stunned, during which they couldn't fight back or took extra damage.
Some early MMOs, like Dark Sun Online, chose to do turn-based combat. Others, like The Realm, did instanced combat "rooms." When we did UO, we couldn't do action combat, but we did want to capture a more real time vibe. Tabbing between targets was basically an accommodation for speed and people who had trouble aiming with the mouse.
Pure turn systems lend themselves to a lot more analysis, obviously. But speed is its own form of skill -- hence stuff like speed chess. Setting time limits on turns is a common thing that gets done even in very deep turn based games, because analysis paralysis can bring everything to a halt.
There are plenty of deep systems that also happen fast -- the entire genre of fighting games comes to mind. And as you say, plenty of slower systems that are shallow. I also don't think pacing precludes team-based play -- all of sports would argue otherwise.
I tend to feel like today's gamer in general leans towards higher interactivity rates, and this leads pretty naturally to actiony feeling things. But there's nothing inherently better or worse about either side of the spectrum, it's all about what the audience you want to reach likes.
facebook though, people need to stop chasing wow numbers...When will developers realize, WoW was an anomaly of many things happening at one time during a period of time.
Lineage 2 success
Continued Age of Conan delays
Shadowbane dump truck launch
People fevering after the taste of ealier mmos
Blizzards following built on Warcraft and Starcraft
=
WoW numbers.
Nothing could happen like that again unless it is CD Prodjekt or Larian. CD Prodjekt and Larian are the only companies that have a semi massive following that could lead into a 4-10million mmo player base at launch.
No other studio will ever repeat WoW, ever imho unless it is CD Projekt or Larian.
Live inside your means, meaning if your game can't survice on 50k-100k player base with a monthly revenue of-5k-20k, then don't make it an mmo.
The main reason UO is not well known today is because it didn't get sufficient ongoing investment. The PK issue caused massive churn, but once fixed, the game started to grow.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the PvP issue was basically fixed by 1999, after I moved off the project. The userbase promptly doubled in size. So describing this as the reason why the game faded doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I dont agree with your opinion that the PK problem didnt cause UO's demise. I agree that trammel was wildly popular, but it was too late. UO had fortified its reputation as a greifer/scammer paradise and people moved to UO's competition.
UO had a huge opportunity to lead the entire genre.
Alternatively, if UO would have implemented Trammel (PVE safe zone) even just 1 year earlier, it would have exploded UO's popularity, and all that extra funding would have gone to UO's budget instead of other games. UO's PK problem pushed many of its players to other games. Without the PK problem UO would have solidified itself as the king of MMO's. More likely it would have been the WoW of its time and its design would have dominated the industry of POPULAR PVE MMO's instead of dominating the failing ganker/griefer FULL LOOT PVP industry design.
I know so many people that left UO before Trammel even came out.
That said, the success of things like Valheim also shows that there is much more widespread acceptance of PvP in the general gaming market than there used to be. But a lot of the veteran MMO players are deeply scarred by UO and so it is still a very touchy subject, as this thread evidences.
I dont see how you think Valheim success is due to PVP? Its completely opposite, it proves allowing PVE servers to separate from PVP servers can be very successful.
My point was always "we need to find ways to manage this problem that aren't just 'ask the company to do it' because they eventually won't, or we will hate how they do it." Believe it or not, that was the reason why I stuck to my guns in UO.
I do believe your intentions here. Even though I can appreciate that you were looking for an automated long term solution to the problem. At some point as a leader, when you are watching your game burn down you have to actually step up and stop the scammers/griefers in the short run while you work on a longer term solution.
Ironically, NOW I get told that I am catering to carebear whiner crybabies and that mute and block are all the tools anyone would ever need, because nothing that happens online is real. (Check out the YouTube comments for lots of examples of that logic). So it's a bit surreal to come here and still be defending against accusations of being overly technolibertarian when to the rest of the world, I represent the opposite pole now.
If you believe the rest of the world other than this board represents the ganker PVP community, then you need to add some PVE'rs to your circle. Because you are setting yourself up for failure letting the hardcore PVP vocal minority pretend they represent the largest part of the MMO playerbase.
PVPers and PVEers are like Oil and Vinegar right now, if you are thinking a PVP flag solution is the ultimate solution, I would strongly suggest you have at least PVE server, PVP server, then a server with your PVP flag solution. This way you can at least expand the servers that are the most popular without tanking your game by trying to find an all in one solution.
You say this was all predictable, but you're using hindsight. There were no MMORPGs like this to draw experience from before UO.
"House keys (allowing people to steal everything you own)." Fixed, as stated.
"Teleportation into houses from higher elevations (again everything is gone)" I don't know if this was fixed. It was a rare situation, since every house of the first set that had an open roof was the same height, and it was rare to have that elevation otherwise (by terrain).
"Hidden players following people into their house (while hidden), waiting for them to logout then stealing everything they own." Fixed by means of the "Reveal" command and the "I Ban Thee" command.
"telekinesis through walls (steal everything)" Fixed. This was related to the back corner bug. They added a corner piece for that corner.
"Portal blocking ganking/ Crates to prevent movement around a portal" This is directly related to ganking. They tried to set in a Justice System, but in the end the Blue Healer Bug killed it, just before EA hit the Trammel button. Yes, this was too slow in the making. Raph won't say it, he doesn't push the blame, but I'm convinced that there were GMs in UO who quietly pushed against this succeeding.
"(patch) naked theives stealing items in town (result) naked theives stealing in town then after guard kills them, friend loots item (FAIL)" Yeah, mistake that should have been predicted.
"(patch) Having newbs put bounties on PK's (result) PK's get huge bounties accrued then kill themselves with another character free MONEY (FAIL)" Yeah, again predictable. This is another example of why I think other GMs were working against a working Justice System.
"Trade window scam, where putting overheavy items into a bag causes everything on the receiver to drop on ground after trade completes, scammer picks it up and banks it, AND keeps the money too." Fixed.
Raph was Lead Designer. That didn't give him total control. There were departments, and those areas were suspect in my mind. Again, he won't say anything about that, he doesn't pass the buck. Many games claimed to have a Justice System to protect players (newbs or otherwise). Look at those scams, where they had "prison", which was really just a quest for the PKers. No punishment at all. That prevailing Dev hardcore thinking, I think, was a problem within UO, too. This time around, Raph is in complete control. It would be career ruin for him to fail, this time. I don't expect him to fail.
Who cares if these were eventually fixed. The entire UO project was burning down for years, and he was over there making coffee by the cup trying to put out the fires. The entire playerbase formed an impression of this game due to these PK/Greifer/Ganker/Scammer problems because they wouldnt implement a proper fix.
There were so many ways they could have stopped the majority of this behavior but they were taking baby steps over the course of YEARS, when they should have been taking huge leaps.
Why didnt they overcorrect the problem then walk that back?
Even now Trammel was obviously not an overcorrection because they havent walked that back at all.
That implies Trammel (PVE safe zone) was the minimum necessary to stop the behavior and not the maximum.
I feel like I need to lead off this reply with a simple statement: you seem to think that I am pro-PvP, or listen only to PvPers, or intend to make a free for all PvP game. None of that is the case.
Brainy said: I dont agree with your opinion that the PK problem didnt cause UO's demise. I agree that trammel was wildly popular, but it was too late. UO had fortified its reputation as a greifer/scammer paradise and people moved to UO's competition.
The chronology is straightforward: the PK problem was bad, it chased away tons of players. Then EQ came out -- which wasn't for a while -- and many players went over there. Trammel went in after that, and the game started to grow and doubled in size.
It reached its peak AFTER the period you mention.
Ergo, PKing didn't kill the game. (It's also not only still alive, but has a pretty large gray shard scene, so it hasn't actually "met its demise" yet either -- but I get that you're speaking in terms of market dominance).
Brainy said: UO had a huge opportunity to lead the entire genre.
It did lead the genre. It got an order of magnitude larger userbase than games before it. What you mean, I think, is it had an opportunity to establish itself enough to not lose users to EverQuest (the only competitor that actually outcompeted it in the period we are talking about).
Alternatively, if UO would have implemented Trammel (PVE safe zone) even just 1 year earlier, it would have exploded UO's popularity, and all that extra funding would have gone to UO's budget instead of other games. UO's PK problem pushed many of its players to other games. Without the PK problem UO would have solidified itself as the king of MMO's. More likely it would have been the WoW of its time and its design would have dominated the industry of POPULAR PVE MMO's instead of dominating the failing ganker/griefer FULL LOOT PVP industry design.
I know so many people that left UO before Trammel even came out.
I agree, doing Trammel earlier would have made a big difference!
But I still know 3d graphics would have made a massive dent no matter what. Certainly our market research at the time indicated that was one of the biggest draws to EQ, along with the lack of PKing.
EQ also just had a stronger compulsion loop, its leveling system was proven and established in DikuMUDs and they did a great job of making it work. Chasing the "ding!" was more powerful and satisfying than UO's skill system.
I dont see how you think Valheim success is due to PVP? Its completely opposite, it proves allowing PVE servers to separate from PVP servers can be very successful.
My bad, I should have picked another title as an example of survival games. I agree that a huge part of Valheim's success is that it is a more forgiving, friend-oriented survival game. Substitute DayZ or Rust instead.
I don't have any problem with PvE servers. Particularly not for a very limited multiplayer game like Valheim.
My point was different. Back then, the PvP audience was too small to sustain a game as expensive as UO. Games like Shadowbane, which were aimed at pure PvP, had limited audiences.
Today that isn't the case. The PvP part of the gaming audience is huge and can sustain entire genres, because the overall gamer audience is huge. The survival genre is a PvP genre, despite Valheim's friendlier take.
I do believe your intentions here. Even though I can appreciate that you were looking for an automated long term solution to the problem. At some point as a leader, when you are watching your game burn down you have to actually step up and stop the scammers/griefers in the short run while you work on a longer term solution.
If you read the article I linked, you know exactly how hard we were trying. No, it wasn't enough.
The dilemma then, as now, is always "how much of the game freedom do you lose in the process?" In the case of MMOs, it was a LOT. We were trying to preserve the freedom because part of your job as a leader is also to preserve the things that keep your customers coming back.
The list of things that you cannot do in MMOs today, the number of ways in which basic social interaction has been blocked in order to reduce griefing, is pretty substantial.
If you believe the rest of the world other than this board represents the ganker PVP community, then you need to add some PVE'rs to your circle. Because you are setting yourself up for failure letting the hardcore PVP vocal minority pretend they represent the largest part of the MMO playerbase.
I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. Did you watch the video, and read the YouTube comments?
I'll try to restate:
Today, many of the PvE'ers behave as badly as the gankers did, and have no repercussions, because there is next to no moderation.
People are so used to crappy behavior now that it is very common to see "just use mute" or inanities like "it's online so it's not real, are your fee-fees hurt?" I see things on social media, in games, and yeah, sometimes on this forum, that are as bad, in terms of harassment and griefing, as anything that happened at the worst moments of UO.
The result is that now, when you leave the relatively small community of people who are still hung up on the UO PKing problem from 25 years ago, I am usually seen as the hippie peacenik prude who is arguing for more safety online and who thinks that mute and block aren't adequate.
PVPers and PVEers are like Oil and Vinegar right now, if you are thinking a PVP flag solution is the ultimate solution, I would strongly suggest you have at least PVE server, PVP server, then a server with your PVP flag solution. This way you can at least expand the servers that are the most popular without tanking your game by trying to find an all in one solution.
I appreciate the advice -- really, it's good advice!
But I think here you have also misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't advancing a PvP flag approach as the ultimate solution. I was merely observing that the very next game I did, SWG, used flags, and PKing was no longer a problem. It worked in WoW too.
Frankly, the games where PKing is still a major problem are the modern sandboxes which are too imitative of original UO and turn into gankboxes. And I agree, bad idea!
I haven't been out anywhere arguing in favor of PKing in literally twenty years. I wrote that article I linked and quoted above, listed off all the lessons I learned, and ended it with, basically "never again." Not sure what else to say on the matter!
/Didn't read any of the replies. Theres no end in site for mmos. Same thing for any other game genre. We've been in a drought, and it's always possible the drought will continue, but as long as theres more than a lan party of people willing to pay for online games, nothing will ever end. Especially with mobile.
Mobile is basically the universe of games. Shitty, great, doesn't matter and everything under the sun will be produced. The advent of cloud (computing?) and virtual shit just mean more and more platforms will be even more viable with less overhead/money (invested)...
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I feel like I need to lead off this reply with a simple statement: you seem to think that I am pro-PvP, or listen only to PvPers, or intend to make a free for all PvP game. None of that is the case.
I know you are not a PVP dev, I have posted here over the years saying how ironic it was that the biggest PVE dev was not protecting PVE players and was allowing PKers to run amok.
What I do think is you have the elusive dream of uniting the PVP and PVE players into one single community. This is a huge rabbit hole that will lead to complete folly. Not realizing that these communities are completely different and in most cases dont want to even associate with eachother. Having a server for PVP and PVE as an option is an extremely safe bet. This way you dont have to backtrack when you find out the combined PVP/PVE server is not working. Usually its too late by that time.
I have seen dev teams make this mistake time and time again. Mainly because they cant understand the game feels completely different in a cooperating PVE server vs the competitive PVP server. Also PVE'ers are sick of watching PVP players get all the hookups.
Even with New World, with them changing from PVP focus to a combined PVP/PVE focus, it doesnt feel like a PVE game, all the top cities, chat, rewards all go to PVP. If they would have allowed a full PVE server and full PVP server, the retention of that game would have been much better. Then they could have kept expanding the servers with demand.
In survival you bring up Rust, but I notice you dont mention the dev team of ARK that literally came out saying they would stop working forever on the PVE friendly Ark to focus exclusively on the PVP world of Atlas. Then COMPLETELY reverse that a couple of years later to push more PVE expansions for ARK after Atlas completely flopped.
This is where I think you miss the mark with WoW, it had the PVE option, which essentially took the complaints off the table.
You can build whatever world you want, all I am saying is you should at least consider the possibility you are misreading the community AGAIN and leave the option for your game to expand a different direction once you figure it out AGAIN. This way you wont be another failed statistic like all the other games that tried to force PVE and PVP on to 1 community.
Dont think I am some carebear only player either. I PVPed alot in UO including the faction system (I stayed in Felluca after Trammel because my city was there), was very high ranked in PVP in DAOC and played on a PVP server in WoW vanilla. I also have recognized the landscape has changed.
The chronology is straightforward: the PK problem was bad, it chased away tons of players. Then EQ came out -- which wasn't for a while -- and many players went over there. Trammel went in after that, and the game started to grow and doubled in size.
It reached its peak AFTER the period you mention.
Ergo, PKing didn't kill the game. (It's also not only still alive, but has a pretty large gray shard scene, so it hasn't actually "met its demise" yet either -- but I get that you're speaking in terms of market dominance).
I agree with your timeline but dont agree with your conclusion. UO was continuing to gain in subs but was losing market share because its reputation was established. UO needed to pivot to PVE bosses and PVE dungeon faster vs pushing into PVP factions and other PVP mechanics.
History is full of companies that were growing while at the same time losing drastically in marketshare. Then eventually are phased out.
UO lost its advantage which was being first to market.
We will just have to agree to disagree here, because we will never know what would have happened if UO switched and opened up a bunch of PVE servers, and focused on PVE instead before EQ got a foothold.
The chronology is straightforward: the PK problem was bad, it chased away tons of players. Then EQ came out -- which wasn't for a while -- and many players went over there. Trammel went in after that, and the game started to grow and doubled in size.
It reached its peak AFTER the period you mention.
Ergo, PKing didn't kill the game. (It's also not only still alive, but has a pretty large gray shard scene, so it hasn't actually "met its demise" yet either -- but I get that you're speaking in terms of market dominance).
I agree with your timeline but dont agree with your conclusion. UO was continuing to gain in subs but was losing market share because its reputation was established. UO needed to pivot to PVE bosses and PVE dungeon faster vs pushing into PVP factions and other PVP mechanics.
History is full of companies that were growing while at the same time losing drastically in marketshare. Then eventually are phased out.
UO lost its advantage which was being first to market.
We will just have to agree to disagree here, because we will never know what would have happened if UO switched and opened up a bunch of PVE servers, and focused on PVE instead before EQ got a foothold.
I kind of agree with Raph on this one.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I couldnt care less what some else thinks.
Personally, I want that open world PvP. But I don't want the grief play. I want the PvP to be meaningful in the story of that world I run my Characters in.
I want wars based on a simulated realism. Meaningful wars over something, land, resources, artifacts, retaliation for raids, and political conflicts.
I also want politics to settle conflicts where it works out, and also function in a realistic simulation.
I want deity cults to be able to fight over artifacts that mean something to said deities.
I want thieves' guilds to set off PvP, between themselves or with other groups. I want PvP in defense against said thieves' actions.
Basically, I want (a) system(s) that can allow for these to flow naturally in the stories based on Player actions in that world, live.
I also want to be able to PvP with PvE griefers. The kind that ruin RP events without attacking or otherwise gaining a flag.
I think this can be done with a combination of the justice system you almost had in UO (i.e. no blue healers and no thieves enticing an attack, killing said player, and not getting the penalty for "murder."), Plus a warfare system, and possibly a system where certain "artifacts" can cause auto-wars to set off between associated player groups, after specific actions.
You say this was all predictable, but you're using hindsight. There were no MMORPGs like this to draw experience from before UO.
"House keys (allowing people to steal everything you own)." Fixed, as stated.
"Teleportation into houses from higher elevations (again everything is gone)" I don't know if this was fixed. It was a rare situation, since every house of the first set that had an open roof was the same height, and it was rare to have that elevation otherwise (by terrain).
"Hidden players following people into their house (while hidden), waiting for them to logout then stealing everything they own." Fixed by means of the "Reveal" command and the "I Ban Thee" command.
"telekinesis through walls (steal everything)" Fixed. This was related to the back corner bug. They added a corner piece for that corner.
"Portal blocking ganking/ Crates to prevent movement around a portal" This is directly related to ganking. They tried to set in a Justice System, but in the end the Blue Healer Bug killed it, just before EA hit the Trammel button. Yes, this was too slow in the making. Raph won't say it, he doesn't push the blame, but I'm convinced that there were GMs in UO who quietly pushed against this succeeding.
"(patch) naked theives stealing items in town (result) naked theives stealing in town then after guard kills them, friend loots item (FAIL)" Yeah, mistake that should have been predicted.
"(patch) Having newbs put bounties on PK's (result) PK's get huge bounties accrued then kill themselves with another character free MONEY (FAIL)" Yeah, again predictable. This is another example of why I think other GMs were working against a working Justice System.
"Trade window scam, where putting overheavy items into a bag causes everything on the receiver to drop on ground after trade completes, scammer picks it up and banks it, AND keeps the money too." Fixed.
Raph was Lead Designer. That didn't give him total control. There were departments, and those areas were suspect in my mind. Again, he won't say anything about that, he doesn't pass the buck. Many games claimed to have a Justice System to protect players (newbs or otherwise). Look at those scams, where they had "prison", which was really just a quest for the PKers. No punishment at all. That prevailing Dev hardcore thinking, I think, was a problem within UO, too. This time around, Raph is in complete control. It would be career ruin for him to fail, this time. I don't expect him to fail.
Who cares if these were eventually fixed. The entire UO project was burning down for years, and he was over there making coffee by the cup trying to put out the fires. The entire playerbase formed an impression of this game due to these PK/Greifer/Ganker/Scammer problems because they wouldnt implement a proper fix.
There were so many ways they could have stopped the majority of this behavior but they were taking baby steps over the course of YEARS, when they should have been taking huge leaps.
Why didnt they overcorrect the problem then walk that back?
Even now Trammel was obviously not an overcorrection because they havent walked that back at all.
That implies Trammel (PVE safe zone) was the minimum necessary to stop the behavior and not the maximum.
Your making the case that these issues were always there over those years. They weren't. They popped up over time, as griefers figured them out. (Other than general PvP ganking.) They did their best to address issues as they found them.
And I think I have to state this again, too, that UO was the first of MMO's, and the first of a Worldly game design rather than the fixed and heavily controlled WoW style. Many issues were unexpected in all of this, at that time.
Me think you are trying to collect a scalp, justifiably or not.
Personally, I want that open world PvP. But I don't want the grief play. I want the PvP to be meaningful in the story of that world I run my Characters in.
I want wars based on a simulated realism. Meaningful wars over something, land, resources, artifacts, retaliation for raids, and political conflicts.
I also want politics to settle conflicts where it works out, and also function in a realistic simulation.
I want deity cults to be able to fight over artifacts that mean something to said deities.
I want thieves' guilds to set off PvP, between themselves or with other groups. I want PvP in defense against said thieves' actions.
Basically, I want (a) system(s) that can allow for these to flow naturally in the stories based on Player actions in that world, live.
I also want to be able to PvP with PvE griefers. The kind that ruin RP events without attacking or otherwise gaining a flag.
I think this can be done with a combination of the justice system you almost had in UO (i.e. no blue healers and no thieves enticing an attack, killing said player, and not getting the penalty for "murder."), Plus a warfare system, and possibly a system where certain "artifacts" can cause auto-wars to set off between associated player groups, after specific actions.
I think there needs to be real significance to death in order to control murder hobo PvP. The risk must outweigh the reward. By a lot. Right now most games have resorted to very insignificant death penalties.
The key is in how they get applied so that it doesn’t discourage normal gameplay. Easier said than done. Especially today when people think a 2 minute walk back is some kind of over the top penalty.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
I fixed it. Sorry and thanks for the English lesson:)
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
Sorry.
Not my first language.
Must respect then. I speak but one language, and I'm not great at it. So I totally respect folks that can communicate in multiple languages.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
Sorry.
Not my first language.
Must respect then. I speak but one language, and I'm not great at it. So I totally respect folks that can communicate in multiple languages.
I feel I do well enough and then I make a mistake like that one and I am reminded that I still have work to do.
It all started with watching English cartoons with my son.
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
Sorry.
Not my first language.
Must respect then. I speak but one language, and I'm not great at it. So I totally respect folks that can communicate in multiple languages.
I feel I do well enough and then I make a mistake like that one and I am reminded that I still have work to do.
It all started with watching English cartoons with my son.
You'd be surprised how many Americans make that same mistake. This particular one. It's become sort of a joke. There's another one that actually caused a new entry to be added into the dictionary. "Regardless of that..." But many people say "Irregardless of that..." I don't know how that happened, but here's the result: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless Languages do evolve, though.
I understand that there might be a perception of my approach as unrealistic, but it seems that few others share that belief in this context. The subsequent posts, as well as the majority of the preceding ones, are inquiring about the questions that I encouraged him to take responsibility for. He came here to provide elucidations about his work. I will not shy away in seclusion when he does. I am not overwhelmed by his 'developer label'. He is just some guy who did a thing.
It was more your tone, others are asking questions, you sounded like a member of the Secret Police interrogating a suspect for historical crimes.
I stand by what I said and how I said it. I could care less what some else thinks.
I think you mean you couldn't care less. Or are you trying to say you really do care about what we think?
Sorry.
Not my first language.
Must respect then. I speak but one language, and I'm not great at it. So I totally respect folks that can communicate in multiple languages.
I feel I do well enough and then I make a mistake like that one and I am reminded that I still have work to do.
It all started with watching English cartoons with my son.
The phrasing you used is correct provided it is clearly expressed in a sarcastic tone, but such can be hard to convey in the written word. As you started learning English through the spoken word in cartoons it's likely you heard "could care less" a good number of times.
Raph's mention of politics intrigues me in the sense of PvP. I'm wondering if all of the Justice Systems and penalties can be handled though a political system. There are gamers who love to run social actions, and love to spend a lot of time organizing such. When you think about it, those gamers are best suited for something like this. And they can be held accountable to their social group through that same system.
It intrigues me overall, too, because of Raph's style. I don't care for political game play devolving to card games and the like. That really sucks, in my opinion. Politics in an MMORPG deserve to be "real." In all the ways, realistic to reality, in as much as a game includes in its simulation.
By the way, thanks to Raph for his participation here. I'm sure we'll see more from him as time permits and news opens up.
Comments
As you said before everyone can see what you are working on once you (and the team) are ready.
I dont agree with your opinion that the PK problem didnt cause UO's demise. I agree that trammel was wildly popular, but it was too late. UO had fortified its reputation as a greifer/scammer paradise and people moved to UO's competition.
UO had a huge opportunity to lead the entire genre.
Alternatively, if UO would have implemented Trammel (PVE safe zone) even just 1 year earlier, it would have exploded UO's popularity, and all that extra funding would have gone to UO's budget instead of other games. UO's PK problem pushed many of its players to other games. Without the PK problem UO would have solidified itself as the king of MMO's. More likely it would have been the WoW of its time and its design would have dominated the industry of POPULAR PVE MMO's instead of dominating the failing ganker/griefer FULL LOOT PVP industry design.
I know so many people that left UO before Trammel even came out.
I dont see how you think Valheim success is due to PVP? Its completely opposite, it proves allowing PVE servers to separate from PVP servers can be very successful.
I do believe your intentions here. Even though I can appreciate that you were looking for an automated long term solution to the problem. At some point as a leader, when you are watching your game burn down you have to actually step up and stop the scammers/griefers in the short run while you work on a longer term solution.
If you believe the rest of the world other than this board represents the ganker PVP community, then you need to add some PVE'rs to your circle. Because you are setting yourself up for failure letting the hardcore PVP vocal minority pretend they represent the largest part of the MMO playerbase.
PVPers and PVEers are like Oil and Vinegar right now, if you are thinking a PVP flag solution is the ultimate solution, I would strongly suggest you have at least PVE server, PVP server, then a server with your PVP flag solution. This way you can at least expand the servers that are the most popular without tanking your game by trying to find an all in one solution.
Who cares if these were eventually fixed. The entire UO project was burning down for years, and he was over there making coffee by the cup trying to put out the fires. The entire playerbase formed an impression of this game due to these PK/Greifer/Ganker/Scammer problems because they wouldnt implement a proper fix.
There were so many ways they could have stopped the majority of this behavior but they were taking baby steps over the course of YEARS, when they should have been taking huge leaps.
Why didnt they overcorrect the problem then walk that back?
Even now Trammel was obviously not an overcorrection because they havent walked that back at all.
That implies Trammel (PVE safe zone) was the minimum necessary to stop the behavior and not the maximum.
What I do think is you have the elusive dream of uniting the PVP and PVE players into one single community. This is a huge rabbit hole that will lead to complete folly. Not realizing that these communities are completely different and in most cases dont want to even associate with eachother. Having a server for PVP and PVE as an option is an extremely safe bet. This way you dont have to backtrack when you find out the combined PVP/PVE server is not working. Usually its too late by that time.
I have seen dev teams make this mistake time and time again. Mainly because they cant understand the game feels completely different in a cooperating PVE server vs the competitive PVP server. Also PVE'ers are sick of watching PVP players get all the hookups.
Even with New World, with them changing from PVP focus to a combined PVP/PVE focus, it doesnt feel like a PVE game, all the top cities, chat, rewards all go to PVP. If they would have allowed a full PVE server and full PVP server, the retention of that game would have been much better. Then they could have kept expanding the servers with demand.
In survival you bring up Rust, but I notice you dont mention the dev team of ARK that literally came out saying they would stop working forever on the PVE friendly Ark to focus exclusively on the PVP world of Atlas. Then COMPLETELY reverse that a couple of years later to push more PVE expansions for ARK after Atlas completely flopped.
This is where I think you miss the mark with WoW, it had the PVE option, which essentially took the complaints off the table.
You can build whatever world you want, all I am saying is you should at least consider the possibility you are misreading the community AGAIN and leave the option for your game to expand a different direction once you figure it out AGAIN. This way you wont be another failed statistic like all the other games that tried to force PVE and PVP on to 1 community.
Dont think I am some carebear only player either. I PVPed alot in UO including the faction system (I stayed in Felluca after Trammel because my city was there), was very high ranked in PVP in DAOC and played on a PVP server in WoW vanilla. I also have recognized the landscape has changed.
History is full of companies that were growing while at the same time losing drastically in marketshare. Then eventually are phased out.
UO lost its advantage which was being first to market.
We will just have to agree to disagree here, because we will never know what would have happened if UO switched and opened up a bunch of PVE servers, and focused on PVE instead before EQ got a foothold.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I couldnt care less what some else thinks.
I want the PvP to be meaningful in the story of that world I run my Characters in.
I want wars based on a simulated realism. Meaningful wars over something, land, resources, artifacts, retaliation for raids, and political conflicts.
I also want politics to settle conflicts where it works out, and also function in a realistic simulation.
I want deity cults to be able to fight over artifacts that mean something to said deities.
I want thieves' guilds to set off PvP, between themselves or with other groups. I want PvP in defense against said thieves' actions.
Basically, I want (a) system(s) that can allow for these to flow naturally in the stories based on Player actions in that world, live.
I also want to be able to PvP with PvE griefers. The kind that ruin RP events without attacking or otherwise gaining a flag.
I think this can be done with a combination of the justice system you almost had in UO (i.e. no blue healers and no thieves enticing an attack, killing said player, and not getting the penalty for "murder."),
Plus a warfare system, and possibly a system where certain "artifacts" can cause auto-wars to set off between associated player groups, after specific actions.
This may be too much to ask for, though.
Once upon a time....
They popped up over time, as griefers figured them out. (Other than general PvP ganking.)
They did their best to address issues as they found them.
And I think I have to state this again, too, that UO was the first of MMO's, and the first of a Worldly game design rather than the fixed and heavily controlled WoW style. Many issues were unexpected in all of this, at that time.
Me think you are trying to collect a scalp, justifiably or not.
Once upon a time....
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There's another one that actually caused a new entry to be added into the dictionary.
"Regardless of that..."
But many people say "Irregardless of that..."
I don't know how that happened, but here's the result:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Languages do evolve, though.
Once upon a time....
The phrasing you used is correct provided it is clearly expressed in a sarcastic tone, but such can be hard to convey in the written word. As you started learning English through the spoken word in cartoons it's likely you heard "could care less" a good number of times.
There are gamers who love to run social actions, and love to spend a lot of time organizing such. When you think about it, those gamers are best suited for something like this. And they can be held accountable to their social group through that same system.
It intrigues me overall, too, because of Raph's style. I don't care for political game play devolving to card games and the like. That really sucks, in my opinion. Politics in an MMORPG deserve to be "real."
In all the ways, realistic to reality, in as much as a game includes in its simulation.
By the way, thanks to Raph for his participation here. I'm sure we'll see more from him as time permits and news opens up.
Once upon a time....