Hopes and Concerns - This Game Needs to be More Massive

Hey all, long time UO fan. It's probably my favorite game of all time, mainly due to freedom and feeling of living in a living world. I am hoping that SotA can rekindle some of those feelings of nostalgia and wonder, but I have some concerns. ?I think this game needs to make sure it caters more to the "massively multiplayer" crowd in order to truly last and be sustainable.

1. First and foremost is the plans on scalability between single player, what seems to be "private server"-esque instances with friends, and then not-quite-massively multiplayer "clusters" of 100 or so people the server deems worthy of me to see and interact with. The beauty of Ultima Online was that it was a living breathing world of heroes, villains, crafters, potential friends, and potential backstabbers. If we let people choose completely who they can stumble upon they will lose out on meaningful possible interaction (whether that's beneficial or dangerous), and it also means a shallower market for crafters and vendors. I might not LIKE to run into a PK, but it also keeps me aware, engaged in my surroundings/quest, and invested in the world. Plus, it's a great counterbalance to amassing complete power like most MMOs - I don't WANT to feel invincible and that grinding monsters is just killing time and not an actual feat.

Also with this point is how housing will work. I understand it's supposed to be persistent, so let's say the server realizes that Bob's house is coming up on my screen... do I always zone into Bob's "instance" because he always sees it there? Will there be servers that we'll have to join? I also hope there will be wilderness homes and not just city homes as well.... which leads me to my next point:

2. World map? From the prototype videos are we going to have a separate world map that we have to zone into areas from? This seems VERY strictly single-player RPG and an immersion killer. The moments I remember fondest (which might sound strange) are getting lost in the forests west of Minoc, desperately trying to find my way back to town so I didn't have to log out in danger. They were delving into Covetous, making a few thousand gold in the Harpy room, and making it back to the guard line in Vesper safely for the first time and banking my loot. I remember feeling the sense of pride of finally being able to afford a house in the north plains above Minoc where I could work on my mining and feeling relaxed as I traveled up and down the mountainside, checking people's vendors, transporting my ore, and feeling like I could interact with every pixel of the world. World maps will make everything seem small and secular.

3. Player economy is another aspect that I believe makes or breaks games. Look at Diablo 3 for a perfect example: letting people people buy stuff with real money is dangerous (some of the Kickstarter rewards seem to be pushing into this dangerous territory in my opinion). It can really hurt the longtime economy if early on it's loaded with hundreds of players with indestructible crafting items, full cities worth of houses taken, etc. I know it's a great reward and all, I just hope not everyone has all these unbreakable pickaxes and other tools that help players keep the trade economy alive.

Additionally, and more importantly, please do not add an auction house. The ability to immediately get what you want at all times instantly, and the best possible equipment for your skill/level with everyone undercutting each other makes everything too easy. People need to work a little for their progress... it might initially turn newbs off, but I firmly believe as they get stronger in the game and the game's life goes on, people will appreciate the slightly-harder-road and their accomplishments will last longer and mean more. Who really remembers the early levels of World of Warcraft as opposed to the early days of Ultima Online as you started out and learned about the world for the first time? I don't even know if you're planning an auction house, but I heard Richard mention it in an interview (not confirming it or anything), so I just want to really make sure that the devs consider the long-term consequences of a globally-connected auction house. Maybe they could be city based like a city bazaar where you could have a vendor peddle wares in your absence in a central area/menu or something, but nothing global please.

All in all, my main concern is that this game will be stretching itself thin trying to please too many subsets of people: oldschool single-player-only RPG fans who are in it only for the story, the Diablo-style crowd who just like to play with a few friends at a time in their own instance of the world, old UO fans (like me) who are HOPING for something to ever match what that game was but have been sorely disappointed year after year, etc. Story is important and all, but MORE important is making OUR OWN story, a la UO, forging friendships and enemies with people who inhabited our WORLD, not our own little pocket of people we want to play with all the time. I know all people's opinions are important, but I feel like there are many more who are desperate for a new massively multiplayer experience that I don't want this seemingly last chance effort to really relive the UO experience to not meet expectations. PLEASE consider some kind of open-world, massive experience where it's not limited to 10, 20, even 100 people the server chooses for us to see. I trust your vision, but I also hope that you all trust in the fervor of old-school, cast-out MMO fans seeking a similar experience to UO. Thanks and good luck! Sorry for the wall of text too! =)

 

I think it's really that the last chunk of huge MMO launched over the last 5 years (warhammer, Aion, GW2 come to mind) stretched too hard for the "massive" end game but failed at it. So what they delivered was a game that was a very thin game with a failed end game.

The goal here seems to be to take baby steps, to go for a very achievable goal single player with friends game (i.e. Diablo), and very slowly add the rest and they have the financing and see the demand for it.

I want the game you're describing for the most part. But have gotten my heart broken too many times. I'm willing to settle for one that does a few things well and builds a base to grow from.

 

Well that definitely is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

I however do not agree. UO although it had it's strong points was severely lacking in what made Ultima's ultima. To me it felt like you were playing a medieval MMO with some Ultima names tacked on. It wasn't what I wanted and hence I didn't spend years playing it. It's not that we are old school rpgers who only care about old school games, we care about the games that made Richard famous.

 

"PLEASE consider some kind of open-world, massive experience where it?s not limited to 10, 20, even 100 people the server chooses for us to see."

I don't think they will have any choice as far as how many people you see. Most instances are going to be rendered on other players computers (ad-hoc). That means we will be at the mercy of their internet connection and their computer hardware. If their computer/internet is not up to speed, well you know the answer to that.

That is really my only concern with online play.

 

The difference with previous MMOs is that they're giant themeparks with a very straightforward experience - level up, grind for incrementally better gear, beat a dungeon once or twice that you'll never return to, hit level cap, grind the same content over and over for small amounts of superficial progression.

There have not been that many open world sandbox games that are user friendly, populated, and interactive. Nobody has truly tried to reinvigorate the format that UO did in the last 15 years. I understand the idea of baby steps and part of the reason of this post is that the devs consider scaling up the "Open Play Online" part to a more global persistent crowd. The problem is if they don't build fundamental gameplay elements in preparation for a massive audience ahead of time it won't really work (walking around alone on a world map for instance).

I understand that a good number of people want a proper Ultima 10 essentially... I just think it's way more in their interest to make a sustainable game that players won't be done with in 60 hours when they "beat" it. I need to feel invested in a world where I can show off my wares to other players, be constantly working towards a goal, goals that are set by myself and helped/hindered by other players perhaps, etc. I worry that if this is a story-driven mainly single player experience with the option to just hop on with friends to beat a difficult quest a la Diablo it's going to be shallow and forgotten in a few months when people complete all the story content, unlike UO.

 

In an interview I saw with a Italian interviewer (who is very hard to understand), Garriott mentions that they are currently considering a 5 year development plan. The first 5 years covers the first five installments of SotA. After that, depending upon the success of SotA, RG stated that they may elect to migrate the player base into a new game design (perhaps an MMO), or they may elect to keep the current design.

Here's a link to the interview. He talks about the 5 year plan, and the possibility of moving to a different game design at about the 15:30 time point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ927jrPxM

 

@Riot Nice post, it echoes my thoughts precisely. I hope more like-minded people speak up and show their support for the type of platform you are describing. SotA has the chance to be the next great game instead of just the next game, and I believe that it will take many voices like yours to nudge the SotA in the right direction.

 

Baltae, it's all a matter of funding. You cannot build a modern MMO on $1 to $2 Million in development capital.

 

It's a good thing that they have much more then 1 to 2 million then. People don't just stop playing single player games, and it doesn't matter this one has a lot of extra things to do on top of the single player storyline.

 

@Rune_74, they have more than 1 to 2 million, but they don't have $100 million, which is a figure LB mentions when talking about recent MMOs that have been developed on traditional MMO lines, and have failed.

 

yep, I agree...

 

Yeah, well most "blockbuster" MMOs have 200 artists making super high res models nonstop, licensing costs, publisher fees to pay, and a bunch of other exorbitant costs. We don't need AAA graphics, music, voice acting, etc. It is TOTALLY within the realm of possibility, the developers just need to understand the desire for a throwback sandbox.

If Garriott clearly articulated a vision for a reimagining of a sandbox MMO I bet he would get a ton of more reluctant Kickstarters to pledge. A LOT of people are clamoring for something new. Just wish there was a clear answer on the possibility of SOME kind of MMO-esque part of this game =( I don't want to wait 5 years!

 

If they didn't have AAA graphics, music, voice acting, etc, then people would be complaining about that. That is human nature.

Consider how hard it has been to get to just $2 Million on Kickstarter. $1.5 Million... I seriously doubt that announcing plans to move SotA to an MMO architecture would generate enough to cover development costs.

 

@riot the sword cuts both ways, many haven't pledged because they think it is a MMO.

 

I pledged on the hopes I can relive my Commodore 64 days on my modern gaming machine. MMO or Single player or a little bit of each sounds very nice. I think with the map travel and the design its going to give us a play space that is truly more detailed and immersive that if a complete world would have to be rendered. Are they doing this on the Cry 3 engine? I am also backing the Star Citizen project and they are doing some sweet ass renderings...I can imagine the same quality in an Avatar Universe.

 

I understand the constraints, but this is about our hopes and dreams, right? Regardless, I doubt kick starter money is the only source of funding.

 

"I pledged on the hopes I can relive my Commodore 64 days on my modern gaming machine."

Amen, I miss my C-64.

 

Oh God rune_74... Here we go again...

"I however do not agree. UO although it had it?s strong points was severely lacking in what made Ultima?s ultima. To me it felt like you were playing a medieval MMO with some Ultima names tacked on."

You made an almost identical post on my thread about the MMO aspect of the game, and I REPEAT... What do you care how the OPO mode of the game plays when you will be perfectly capable of choosing exactly how you want to experience SotA, and have the game cater specifically to those needs. Especially with so many different ways to play and online modes. Single Player Offline, Single Player Online, FPO, and OPO.

And Secondly:

Rune_74:
"the sword cuts both ways, many haven?t pledged because they think it is a MMO."

This statement just seems ridiculous to me. I SERIOUSLY doubt that anybody has held back from donating because they think this game is going to be an MMO... Anybody who would even consider donating money to the project would undoubtedly read the posts on the main page, read up on the forums, or at the very least watch one of the many interview videos with RG or another member of the team, and in ALL 3 of these outlets, it is CLEARLY stated more than once that this game is going to revolve HEAVILY around the story, and the single player experience. Furthermore it is again stated in all of these outlets how it is completely up to the player how he or she chooses to experience SotA with the inclusion of four separate modes ranging from 100% offline, to an "MMOish" feel. So even on the highest social level, the game still isn't considered an MMO, just MMO-Like.

 

Well if you read these forums it seems that a lot of people are either expecting or wanting a second Pre-trammel UO, even though they have pretty much outlined something a lot different (the OP is a good example).

I don't know how many of them have pledged though.

 

@twztid I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to make any posts I like, even if you in your infinite wisdom do not agree. Time and money to make the online world you want will definitely affect other areas of the game.

Secondly, MMO's with a heavy storyline is still an MMO. If you don't believe me in that people are not interested in it because they think it is an MMO go to rpgwatch.com or colonyofgamers.com. I have posted a lot of the interviews and such there but many wrote it off right away.

I'm sorry I just don't agree that this game needs to be more massive. We all have opinions.