A plea for the single player experience.

I don't blame you. I derailed there. Not knowing much about Skyrim's sales (other than I didn't buy it), I thought you were saying they were not good...but having now googled it (followed by exclamations of "holy poop that's a lot!") I can now read your sarcasm.

My bad.

 

Yes. Does this mean I am not alone in thinking that the dev team are not as much of fans of U7 as maybe many of use pledgers were? Things that caused the initial success of U7 and UO almost seem to be things that the dev team either (A) turns their back on or (B) seem to almost, dare I say, ...despise what was in the game. I hear too many comments from the team indicating an interest in things that have already been done in WoW, or any other pop-culture game.

I feel like in the interest of getting his team interested in the project, LB has stepped to far back and hasnt said what he needs to say... and that thing is, "STOP! We are going to change direction do what hasn't been done in a long time. Make an open world RPG that lets players become part of the content and lets the story line be a part of the players."

They almost seem to be wanting to do what is already being done in game to make the game big, and not do something that will make the game different. LB's games have had so much success because they were different, not more of the same.

 

Sorry I didn't make the rules. We had many discussions in the PvP forums all year long and many of us agreed that non-pvp players should be able to gather resources from any place. Many of us agreed that it would be better if nobody had to flag for PvP to gather any special resources.

However Portalarium made their own decision to create these zones as planned anyway. Now you will not be allowed to gather the special PvP only resources unless you are flagged for PvP in that zone. Sorry I don't make the rules. Lord British does.

Personally I would love to have a system that doesn't "require" people to turn PvP on in order to do something in the game. They had the ability to create the game in such a way that would not have to force people into PvP or not go to a certain place, but the chose not to do it that way.

So that being said ... to keep things fair under the system that Portalarium developed, nobody should be able to gather any resources in a PvP zone without being flagged for PvP. If you don't like it then keep making noise in these threads to get "PORTALARIUM'S ATTENTION" and don't get mad at me the messenger of this information. Look through the old PvP threads and you will see what I advocated. I'm not your enemy bro.

 

This topic is prompting me to de-lurk because it directly addresses much of what I've been feeling about the development of SoTA.

I've read each newsletter, patiently hoping to find something that suggests the level of richness and detail that I experienced in Ultima VII. Sadly, it seems to be more about up-selling in-game items and housing to backers than anything else.

I totally agree with the original poster's comments on companions (please make them like U7) and the conversation system (I really don't like having to rely on me understanding the parser to progress a conversation; I like the click-the-keyword method). I personally would have liked a mono-scale map, but appreciate that this is a design decision that has been taken and the current map doesn't look completely unusable.

I pledged for SoTA because of the single player experience and I'm in it for the narrative. For me, I have no interest in acquiring virtual property, having pets follow me around and crafting. I don't think I'll be into the multi-player mode as I find other players' actions often breaks immersion. For example, in a crowded scene such as an Inn, the players all look a bit unnatural, facing each other (or a wall), usually with at least one character standing somewhere unrealistic (like on a chair or table).

Of greater concern is there seems to be a lot of content being created because it "looks cool", not because it makes sense in the gameworld. Small village houses that have epic, multi-level basements, hot tubs (!) and that metronome that I've seen pop up in a few places. It all seems a bit thrown together.

I'm glad RG is watching this thread and I'm really hoping that the game we get in the end makes us single-player gamers as happy as those into multiplayer.

 

They addressed this somewhere. In single player, those hexes will not have the EXTRA resources you get for PvP, rather they will have a normal amount of resources, but they won't be inaccessable or anything. They'll be the same as the PvP hex is in multi, except without the PvP threat and a normal amount of resources. Sounds fine to me.

 

Thank you for coming out of the woodwork. Its important that we all voice our views.

This is just anecdotal on my part, but I think maybe RG didn't realize just how many backers thought, or perhaps I should say hoped, we were really getting back to his roots. I know I felt alone several months ago and take comfort in threads like this.

 

UO as never built on the success with Origin making a great sequel to the game with all the latest possibilities in gaming developments just a few poor tries.
RG seems to want to bring back the old appeal of the Ultima games.
Is it all down to that fallout when the 2 parted company, If Origin developed the best UO2 possible The characters Lord British & companions would become a boost for RG's ego as he would seem part of the game.
If RG goes back to his roots and resurrects a great Ultima & UO type game would it give Origins ego a boost and they could use it as a boost and make new Ultima's , a series that they now own.
Maybe its time to man up and forget their differences and get Ultima back on the road.

 

I have no problem with resources being more plentiful in pvp areas. The logic being: A) the area is more dangerous, so plentiful resources are your reward for taking the risk, or B) an attempt to get non pvp players involved in a playstyle they have rejected and may like. However, to be balanced, the opposite should exist. There should be areas that offer a bonus to non pvp players similar to the logic A or B.

This balance is missing and leads to the arguments back and forth in my opinion. It seems that in all scenarios, the pvp player has pretty much unencumbered access whereas the non pvp player does not (without changing his/her playstyle). The non pvp player who goes for the rich resource risks his life and belongings. The pvp player risks nothing more than he always risks anyway.

 

Never really agreed with the argument that PvP somehow merits some extra reward that's not available from doing other things in the game. Some areas might take a lot of work to get to and back from, so few people might want to take the time doing it, some areas might have tough NPCs, and so on, etc.. And besides, I don't really think a game world should be set up to reward players for doing things, like its overly-conscious about the fact that its a game.

Traditionally, looting, honor, and fun, was the reward of PvP, wasn't it?

 

I didn't hear that. That sounds fine to me as well. Does that also go for forging the items out of that material that can only be forged in one spot in the world (that happens to be a PvP only zone)?

If so then I will guarantee you that I will switch my player to SPO to forge all the items I want in that zone. I'll even have my crafter be on a separate character so I can leave him in SPO all the time. That's just a gaming decision that sounds like the smart move to make.

 

We have 30,000-something backers here. We are a niche game. Some are here for the single-player side. Some are here for the multi-player side. Some are here for both.

It is absolutely impossible for you to sit there and say that, if this was a single-player only proposition, we'd still have the same number of backers. Clearly, we would have less.

 

The failure to get more backers has no bearing on the category to which a game will fit. You can equally call SC a niche game, since it caters to a specific crowd of people who want to just fly around and have no houses to build, planetary politics, etc..

They have a lot more than 30k backers.

This game has "niche" designs, like the card combat, but it is a pretty standard fare RPGish game with MP elements.

Your statement also carries the implication that the originals did not have enough of a following to really warrant making a new flavor game, or at least the money goals have pretty much been met?

What happens if the game doubles its pledge in the next year? It is no longer niche?

What do you consider ESO? A 4 million subscriber, 200 million+ counting beast with no end in sight. That I consider more niche than this game. No housing, no expanded crafting, non-specific classing.... i.e. Money, and customer base, has nothing to do with category.

I mean, if you are saying the well has run dry on getting more blood from stones people funding, then which message are you supporting?

That the game is too niche to find its footing from the original design, or that regardless of how much money is pumped into it, the original design is just not a consideration?

 

Joviex, you seem to be reading a lot, and imply an awful lot more, into what I said... than what I actually said.

SotA is a niche game, whether you have a personal interpretation of what "niche" means, or not. And if SotA was single-player only it would have less backers than it has now.

I'm going to leave it at that and not get drawn into discussing the other stuff; things I never actually raised. Cheers.

 

I'm not so sure about that as there could be some people who think that multiplayer will compromise the single player experience and vice versa. I believe there are gamers out there who did not pledge for the game because they wanted a true Ultima Online 2 without any single player elements. And I know that there are people out there who did not pledge because they wanted a true spiritual sequel to the single player Ultimas without any multiplayer - a friend of mine did that.

Also there is a huge demand for classic single player RPGs - take a look at the success of Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera... those are all single player only games and are rated among the most successful Kickstarter games, exceeding their funding goal by far. On the other hand, most MMORPGs on Kickstarter didn't do that well compared to single player RPGs...

So I am not so sure if there would be less backers if Richard Garriott and Co. would have a announced a 3D isometric party based single player RPG as a spiritual successor to Ultima with detailed companions, complex NPC schedules, a high world interactivity etc. ...

 

Obviously those people exist and I'm sure if we put our heads together we could even invent other permutations on top of that, but I'm talking about the people who are actually here now, as backers.

My point being, if the single-player or multi-player aspect of the game was removed, the number of people, who are here now, would shift. And yes, there may well be people who would then join if the game went single-player or multi-player (as you are referring to), but I think those people are in a minority, relatively speaking. They'd make up some numbers on either side, but I doubt they'd fill the gap that would be left by the number of people leaving in the first place.

 

Ok, I agree with that.

 

Agreed.

Ever since the Selective Multiplayer system was announced - over a year ago - I have patiently waited for a proper explanation of how it is going to work. I don't mean the mechanics of OPO, FPO, SPO etc., I mean details on how they are going to resolve the issue that single-player and multi-player games are fundamentally different. Specifically:

How can you have meaningful, scripted NPC companions in a multiplayer game? Do you allow every player to recruit Iolo (for example), and therefore have 20+ Iolos running around town? Or do you implement a "1 Iolo per instance" limit somehow? Do you only allow Iolo in single-player mode? If so, that violates their design philosophy of having all content available in all modes. The answer is probably that NPC companions will be procedurally generated - very challenging to make them 'meaningful', but not impossible. In any case, tell us!

How can each player's choices/actions in the main quest have a meaningful effect in a multi-player world? In a single-player game, the world can permanently change based on the player's choices/actions and the progression of the narrative. But in a multi-player game, the world must constantly reset to a default state so that all players can experience the same content. Is there some new innovation that resolves this issue? If so, tell us about it!

How is the difficulty of the combat encounters in the main quest determined? In a single player game, you can easily control the challenge of the game because the player's power grows along fairly predictable lines. But in multi-player you have to consider players teaming up, twinking, grinding XP etc. What mechanics are they going to implement, if any, to ensure the combat in the main quest is actually challenging? Or will they keep the combat content static, allowing the players to use the above methods to make it easy if they so wish (perfectly valid, but we want to know!)? (Note regarding twinking: I vaguely recall DarkStarr talking about scaling item power down (but never up) if the item is not level appropriate. This is the kind of stuff we need to know!).

I realize that some of the questions may have been answered in the various deep dives or megathreads, but they are hard to find without spending hours trawling through posts for answers. I am happy to be directed to the answers where they exist.

In summary, I think the design philosophy of making all content available in all modes is admirable, but given what I have seen (or more accurately, what I have not seen) I have doubts that the massive development complexity it causes is worth it. Unless there are other gameplay innovations arising from Selective Multi-player that we have not heard about yet, those seeking a single-player experience will only find the game compromised by the need to make the game viable for multi-player. Seeing other players' houses and vendors in SPO is a start, but does it really justify all the compromises? Likewise, knowing that everything in the game can be acquired/achieved in SPO may tarnish the multi-player experience for some. If you try to please everyone, you will please no one! I trust that the Selective Multi-player system was not just something dreamed up purely to appeal to as many gamer types as possible in order to maximize funding. The whole 'player freedom' angle sounds good on the surface, but I fear it may hide some ugly compromises underneath!

As a Knight backer, I really want this game to succeed. I have a lot of respect for the development team, but I just can't shake the feeling that the Selective Multi-player system is hindering what could be a brilliant single-player game or brilliant MMO. I am sure that many players disagree and I am more than happy to be proven wrong on this. And if any developers are reading this, I welcome a rebuttal!

 

As a quick side note, this isn't just likely, it's been confirmed a number of times by the original Elder Scrolls devs:

Not wholly relevant, but I figured since it came up somebody might be interested in seeing that.

 

I pledged for SotA for the single player open world experience I intially got in Ultima AND for the open PvP and loot system I intially got in UO(before it was pillaged and plundered). I already know the online end of things will not be what I wanted(they seem to have a game mode for every option except mine), and now am concerned the single player side will be the same way.

It seems like they got so sucked up in the success of "build/craft/decorate" games, they are completely distracted and focused on going with whats already been done. I didnt pledge for that.

I partly agree with that statement. PvP shouldnt be an extra reward... but that is if all players were willing to be fully open to the same game mechanics that the NPCs have. Opt-out PvP option means some players are not willing to experience that portion of the game. That is their loss and in single player, yo ucan still get into those zones safely.

Is single player missing something that online PvP'ers have.. YES - Extra resources.

Are online PvP'ers missing something that single player has.. YES - Safety gathering those resources in those zones.

I really dont think this hurts the single player experience. If anything... it improves it.

 

I wish I could remember where they said this. My initial thought is that it was on a deep dive, but I'm not sure. I know they said it (or something similar). I don't think they addressed how the unique forges would be addressed in single player, though that is something that should be addressed.