Tram Killed UO is Tram back?

@Dranack:

Yes, glad you clarified things. I wasn't referring to your video, just Elvish dragon's regarding the map.

The point I was attempting to drive home was that many players play online due to the competitive aspect of it, don't let the acronym "MMORPG" throw you off track (Call of Duty, Battlefield 1942, etc.). Think outside the box.

I can back this up with evidence and it's called League of Legends. Also, PVP servers in WoW have a larger population than PVE servers. But, with the poorly constructed system of PVP in WoW that could mean a number of things. However, if you want actual figures that will take some time.

 

@Dranack, it's certainly true for games that feature open PvP, which are not many. Other than UO, the only ones I can recall are ShadowBane, and Darkfall. A new Darkfall, Unholy Wars, went live recently. In those games, people most definately go online to compete against other players. If SotA has an open PvP mode, then those who choose open PvP will do as well.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

<blockquote>I can back this up with evidence and it?s called League of Legends.</blockquote>

While it shows competition, LoL is a very bad example if you want to show that players like non-consensual, open world PvP. After all, LoL is an arena PvP-only game, with (supposedly) balanced teams. All PvP is consensual, and the game server does it's best to prevent unbalanced fights, which seems to be the diametrically opposite to the open PvP you seem to desire.

<blockquote>Also, PVP servers in WoW have a larger population than PVE servers. But, with the poorly constructed system of PVP in WoW that could mean a number of things.</blockquote>

PvP players in WoW tend to go to fewer servers. So, while there are more players in PvE servers than in PvP servers, the few large PvP servers are the ones with the largest population.

The flip side of that argument is that the 50 or so lowest population servers in WoW are predominantly PvP ones, which explain why PvP servers hold only 40% of the player base despite the largest servers being PvP. There's also the issue of faction imbalance - 6 out of the top 10 most populous PvP servers, including the largest one (Illidan), are so imbalanced most players never see an enemy in open world PvP (more specifically, the largest faction has at least 30x more active players than the smaller one). In a game with faction-based PvP, servers with this kind of imbalance are, for most practical effects, PvE servers, even if they follow PvP rules.

 

@Owain - you tend to prove my point with your evidence(not that you were really disagreeing with me.) The claim was that *most* people tend to go online to compete, yet the evidence suggests the contrary. UO switched to mainly pve(though open pvp still remains and is very popular on *1* server), Shadowbane is dead, though I hear a remake is in the works. Eve, though mainly pvp also has "pve" zones. Age of Conan went mainly pve, though there is still an active pvp community.

Darkfall and Eve seem to be the only really successful open pvp games in the vast sea MMORPG games. The upcoming Pathfinder Online game is going for an open pvp system - I'm curious as to how well it will fare, simply because it is based on a TTRPG that focuses on teamwork rather than competition.

I don't disagree with the idea that people go to the internet for competition. I just disagree that *most* people go to the internet for competition.

@Aficionado - your evidence is faulty. You are picking games that are made completely differently than an MMORPG. Halo is very popular for online competition, too, but the structure is entirely different than an MMORPG - when you die, you respawn in seconds and lose almost nothing. You might have a weaker weapon than before, but they are lying around the map(and you know where they are), so it is fairly easy to grab one and get back in the fight.

I just took a look at the server status for WoW, and saw something interesting - all the servers labeled RP had either medium or high populations, while many of the pvp servers had low populations. I must conclude(from shoddy evidence) that *most* people go to the internet to roleplay - much more so than pvp. Or, I could look at the surrounding evidence and realize that there are more pve and pvp servers than rp, so my evidence may be skewed.

Using your evidence structure, I would say that the most popular SUV on the road is the Jeep Wrangler, because that's what I see most people driving when I go to off-road gatherings.

I have no doubt that people go to the internet to compete, but making claims based on completely different genres of gaming is making no claim at all.

At it's height, Farmville was more popular than LoL is now. LoL had(as of 10/2012) 35 million active players, with 12 million people playing per day. 4.1 million people liked it on Facebook. During it's peak(2010), Farmville boasted 80 million users and 31 million daily users. Right now, 36 million people like it on Facebook. Farmville 2 currently boasts similar(though slightly lesser) statistics. Farmville is a non-competitive game.

Of course, none of that info matters, because Farmville is in a completely different genre than an MMORPG.

 

Aww, 19 pages in the thread. A hot topic for both ca..casual players and hardcore guys!
In my opinion - yes, Tram and itemization killed UO.
Fel turned into a desert void of life not because all the PvPers too went to Tram. But because after all the ca..sual players gone, reds had nothing more to do. Fighting each other isn't fun for Pkers. Hunting sheep is fun for them. What's the satisfaction of killing someone who's prepared to die? What's the point if you can't go to a dungeon and threaten someone with death if they don't give you all their gold and gems?
Funny. If EA didnt make this stupid tram on EVERY server but instead made half of the servers PvP, and the other half - non-PvP the game might have survived. but it died, nowadays its full of people who log in to refresh their houses and chat with other people about real-life affairs. Which is, simply put, pathetic.

 

@Dranack - Of course UO went PvE when EA destroyed UO felucca with insurance and itembased PvP that demanded 24/7 PvE. Add a totally different skill/spellsystem and new classes and EA got what they wanted, a more or less dead area called felucca. Me and tens of thousand with me did'nt go to trammel, we left the game to never come back.

Why do you think all those pre-trammel and pre-AoS freeshards opened up? There were easily +50000 playing those shards alltogether. I played on one that had almost 10000 active players with arround 1500 same time peak hours. How many active players did EA have after they destroyed felucca with first trammel and then AoS? I'd say fewer.

If developers like EA do their best to remove PvP from their game then it will become mainly PvE.

And how many AAA companies have tried to reinvent UO felucca? If noone do it then noone know how many would be interested participating.

 

@Ara, do you have facts or statistics to back up your 50k number, or are you just going by gut?
Was free vs. $15/month a factor?
Did you consider the number of RP shards?
How long did these shards last?
Etc., etc, etc.

@Templar - you have outed yourself as someone that just wants to prey on people. At least you are honest about it, though.

 

@Dranack - I'm pretty sure the most of these playing these felucca freeshards would gladly have payed monthly subscriptions cause many of them did it on the original EA shards, we lost our game cause of EA and we would love to play that old felucca game with subscriptions if we had the option which we hadnt.

The one i played on was far from the biggest and it had confirmed 10000 active players and 1500 was online same time peak hours. Add the largest one that had 50000 registered players which sure some wasnt active but you get the idea. These 2 shards was felucca PvP shards and there was other big ones with about 30-40000 registered users.

Just cause EA removed the will for us oldtimers to play their server we found other servers that was more or less copies of the old game. I even made one myself, or rather my computer skilled son did one that is a copy more or less of Renaissance. It still exists and were thinking of launching it again just for some fun PvP action while we wait for SotA.

The one i played on existed +25 years.

So what the PvE and PvP should ask themself - was the ones seeking oldtime felucca gameplay as crafters, PvP, Roleplayers, tamers or PK:s actually more players then the original game that continued to drop subscribers? I think so without knowing the exact accurate numbers for freeshards.

 

For me Tram did not kill UO i played UO until the samuri stuff started. I went to wow because of the better graphics and less lag. There was nothing more frustrating then all of a sudden 50 people show up while i am still fighting i lag and then OOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOO. Is it Tram? That is a yes no answer. He is making it so everyone can play how they want. He also explained that their main puter is making just the outline for the area we are in. Main puter grouping like players together, then we are the shard not their puter. It is like combining PvE PvP and RP together at same time. But you just can't see each other! He stated that in villages towns and cities is where things you make you can sell. And looks like way he is setting things up there is no reason to have different servers because the people that are grouped together are the different servers. If he can get the tec right LB is making a game for any one that likes D&amp;D stye play Crafters PvE PvP RP A very sweet concept!!!!!!

 

@Dranack
"@Templar ? you have outed yourself as someone that just wants to prey on people. At least you are honest about it, though. "
Not only this, but I want others to prey on me, too. You know..it's only fun when they run.
I don't want to be just a miner, or a smith, or a tailor. I want to be that miner who gets to give half of the mined ore to the local gang in order to survive.

Advocating open PvP is not something that only hardcore PKers do. I like to touch birds and mine ore, and when I do this I don't plan to be wearing my full plate armour and my two halberds, crossbow and the throwing knives, you know. Imma wear a t-shirt and a kilt .

 

@Ara - I'm not doubting that there were popular free shards. I am doubting how popular. If you have 3 free shards with an average of 40k people each, you can't really say that 120k people play that way. It could be the same 40k people on each shard(not likely, but possible). After all, they aren't paying a fee, so why not subscribe and test it out. There is just no reliable way to calculate the numbers.

UO had 250k subscribers at its peak. Considering that they were paying customers, it seems likely that they were active. However, we also have to take into account people with multiple accounts and gold farmers. It makes it very hard to calculate a real number.

Also, I think your math may be a bit off, with the longevity of the servers. UO just had its 15th anniversary(having been released in 1998). This makes it really hard for any free shard to be 25 years old, 10 years older than the game.


@Templar - I don't really know what to say about this.

 

I will honestly not play this game very long if there is no RISK involved in my every day activities. What's the point if this is like every other MMO where you have nothing to lose.

I don't and never have played as a PKer, but I still appreciate having them in the game. This sandbox, open PVP world is what made UO popular and anyone who disagrees is likely delusional.

 

@Lavos - You're absolutely right. It had nothing to do with being the first game of its kind at all. Nor did it have anything to do with the popularity of the Ultima series or RG/LB. The game hit its peak subscriber base well after the introduction of Trammel, but that is clearly a fluke, because they started to decline after the release of Samurai Empire(though the two had nothing to do with one another - Tokuno is the most populated area in the UO world).

/end delusion

 

@Dranack - Yes it is hard to calculate numbers on freeshards and how many that was active of the registered users and many players could have been registered on many shards.

And yes i calculated wrong, must have been tired.=)
The shard i played on started 2004 and ended 2012, so 8 years.

And yes you're right the downfall of subscribers started not after trammel but after Age of Shadows released 2003 and that was the final nail in the UO coffin for many UO oldtimers. The PvP oriented players ended their subscriptions and after AoS it was all downhill.

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

 

@Ara

In one of the hangouts one of the main devs (I don't remember if Chris or RG) do speak about the freeshards, and if I remember correctly dismiss them as having far less players than the official servers; perhaps someone with better memory for this kind of thing than me could point when this happened.

I didn't go after the info myself, though. Not much interest in playing in private servers.

 

It should be noted that the following statements are plainly false, and are largely used to discredit an opposing group of gamers:
1. Trammies are cowards, carebears, and incapable of meeting any challenge or risk.
2. Felucians are griefers, with no consideration for other players, or the game itself, instead seeking to kill everything possible.

I imagine everyone is tired of at least one of these claims being asserted. Skimming 20 pages took discouragingly long considering how little has been accomplished. Trammies and Felucians both want a game that they can enjoy playing. Felucians are concerned that trammel will impede on their vision of SotA, and trammies are concerned that felucia will force griefing down their throats. Both of these concerns matter (as do most of the others out there), and what this thread should be about is how to satisfy both parties' interests, not who should be ignored.

Ultima Codex claimed that, "SotA is proposing a PvP solution that is nevertheless ?better?... an opt-in PvP experience that also doesn?t wall off PvP (or those who would avoid it) into specific corners of the world, or into different instances. For those of you who want the ability to attack other players openly, that will happen?but it will be players who choose to open themselves to that, not just any player at random..."

Its clear that SotA's staff are aiming at mutual gains, and it can benefit everyone if the players take similar goals.

td;dr: less us/them, more we.




My concern is that when a trammel-esque option is presented to players, its is highly likely that they will take it. This is not inherently bad, however, many felucians enjoy both being slain as a miner, and slaying miners (which require a populated felucia). What I mean to say here, is that while in theory, all the felucia people should just play in felucia, the reality is that each of them will move their non-pvp activites to trammel out of self-interest, despite the fact that doing so will further empty the world that they're trying to support (see Hardin's the Tragedy of the Commons). Such is why WoW is so big, and why full-loot pvp worlds are not popular. Everyone gets their self-interest at the cost of grinding to compensate for a lack of risk, despite the fact that, if asked, very few will voice support for grinding (hence the negative connotations attached to the word).

So here is my question, in case you're a lazy or slow reader: How can felucians and trammies secure their interests mutually rather than exclusively? Before answering this however, people should better summarize what their interests are. People have posted throughout this thread, "I want this and not that and I'll quit if I don't get it!"

INSTEAD (caps to pull your attention), leave the hollow threats out of this, and just post your interests. Don't post your position (IE, f*** trammel), but rather what you are interested in that trammel/felucia offers (good and bad). List these interests, and maybe then, as a playerbase, we could come up with a discussion worth reading.

Also, I heart you all for supporting this game.

 

@Mordecai - It's really easy as i see it.

SotA will have a slider that can go from "trammel" to "felucca" and it is you as a player that decide where you belong, trammel or felucca.
I belong in felucca both as a crafter and PvP:er cause i enjoy the risk being killed and fully looted. Other's dont enjoy "felucca" and stay in "trammel".

But if there wont be a "felucca" option in SotA for us that see full loot, open non-consensual PvP, PK:ing with consequences and a gamestyle that have risk vs reward as it's mantra then i will move on, yes then SotA wont be a game for me and im sure many with me. There have to be an option for such a PvP endgame.

And before we know what developers want we can only try to influence them.

 

Bring back the fear!
That what made you feel alive in UO!

 

Ara, I understand the fel/tram slider situation. I just use tram and fel as separate facets for example.

I invite you to look closer at my previous post, and then to take a close look at your post. You've labeled your position (felucian) in the first paragraph, and then, in the case that your position is not met, in the second paragraph, you've made your threat. This is exactly what I'm cautioning against. When we split the issue into who is a felucian and who is a trammie, we're left with an unresolvable problem. Instead, why not start at your interests, and from there see if we can accommodate both parties? It seems that what you value about Felucia is:

-full loot
-open pvp (including non consensual)
-consequences for pking
-risk vs reward

Luckily, I think that your interests just about capture the general interests of most felucians. Now if a trammie could post their interests (not positions please), then I wouldn't have to search through this thread again to find them, and we could start comparing and contrasting the groups' interest.

 

@Mordecai:

In many cases it's not a threat, merely an statement. In my own case, if I can be attacked by other players against my wishes, or if there is PvE content that is available in the offline game but requires opening oneself to PvP to access the same content in the online game, I will play offline because the online game would either not be fun at all, or would be less fun than the offline game, for me.

My interests are simple: I want to be able to play all PvE content - and particularly the most challenging PvE content the game has to offer - with no risk of PvP. Anything less than that would make the online game worse, for me, than the offline version.

It's not that I don't play PvP; I just don't accept non-consensual PvP in any shape or form. I'm actually interested in the concept of mission-based PvP, depending on how they play out (mainly if I can completely ignore PvE while doing the PvP missions; I like both consensual PvP and PvE, as long as they aren't mixed together).