I'm going to say that SP should not be a focus in this game (rant)

@SilentStrider I typically don't mind battlegrounds, but I don't see how that would work that great with a classless system.. OFC I'm talking about theory here so...

But, concepts I DO think would work well in SotA are;

Players defending territory/scenes/houses
-A example would be really strong player defending his house with 3 pet dragons
-Guilds vs Guilds in a customize scene (more like a on-going/persitent battleground)
-Party vs Party encounters like competing in a Dungeon for rights to the loots

I see something like a battleground in Sota as a one-off encounter, not something you would do repetitively, however.

I do love the idea of having several "handfulls" of content 'areas' to play including open zone 'sandbox', central town areas, dungeons, Guilds, endgame etc..

 

@mike11:

Actually, battlegrounds work great with classless systems.

If the system actually encourages enough variety in builds the battleground can even feature more tactical options than a class based one, adding a lot to the fun. And even if everyone is more or less using the same build, it's not worse than any class-less multiplayer FPS out there.

A permanent Guild vs Guild scenario, akin to a persistent battleground, sounds great on paper, but it does have one heck of a downside: winners are usually decided more by around the clock coverage than by skill. Look for "PvDoor" around the web to see some examples (you can imagine where that name comes from ). If that problem is solved, then yeah, it's a great idea.

As for house defense and party vs party, they sound great - for willing players. Having those forced on an unwilling player, or an unwilling group of players, could potentially ruin the game session for the unwilling players.

 

This is quite simply ridiculous...sorry.

You cannot market your game as having a strong single player story then turn around and say nah we scrapped that. Many of us are here for that and will probably dabble in MP as well.

 

@rune_74, who said anything about them scrapping anything? If a subset of players choose to ignore the single player story and devote themselves to perpetual guild wars, that's their business, not the the devs, and not yours.

 

@owain maybe read the thread title.

 

@rune_74, just responding to your comment. The thread topic tends to become irrelevant this far down the thread.

 

@owain...well, I'm commenting on the rant...which was ridiculous...never said anything else you ranted on.

 

So here's the thing,

Portalarium ran a Kickstarter that billed a Single Player experience with Online elements. According to Kickstarter rules that is what they are legally obligated to provide to us as backers. Although I respect the opinions original poster, this can not change, and I think we need to allow Richard and his team to create the game they pitched to us.

If they don't I will not be happy because I signed on for Single Player with Multiplayer.

I think everyone will be happy with the resulting game, but I understand the concept is revolutionary and hard to understand.

 

Here's the thing though, if you want a GOOD single player experience

and I mean good as in VERY good, I believe you truly need to dedicate a game to just that.

Now think to yourselves, do you really want a game that has spent the majority of it's time and focus to even be in MMO ballpark, to not be phenomenal at multi-player depth?

If games at $200,000,000 cannot pull off well, how do you expect a $2,000,000 game to do so?

This game is clearly not a primarily single-player experience just by technicality alone.

Many other game companies have already realized that a linear game experience tells a better story. So unless you want player to play the game for 40 hours and then logout for good, I hope you are going to let a good multi-player system develop and evolve. If anyone can do it Lord British can indeed!

This game needs a reason to STAY LOGGED IN!!!!

That is what I think is most important and what LB invented with UO, I have faith in him.

I also think a good online RPG needs to have many content types, but I know from experience that the linear style RPG elements do not get played as much as the multi-player content does. There is not as much life and dynamic to it, even if the story is brilliant the constant "accept quest" "accept quest" then follow the map to kill XX bad guy. It's just too old now, and any MMO developer in this day and age would be stupid to devote their game to.

I think what I'm getting at is that in this game you will not play a central role in the story elements, you will be playing yourself. Likely you will start as a human and then can grow from there, you will not be the one slaying the ultimate character in the story and ending tyranny for all time. You will play a citizen/lord/baron or what have you, have a home, develop your character, explore the lands, play the story elements to help you get you fit for the game, then into the bad world of PvP which by nature should provide content that feeds on itself.

Once a player is done with the story elements, or the learning curve they will be AT EQUAL to other players. This is where the *rest* of the game will begin. The content that will last. The endgame. They can then choose to make friends, make enemies or simply continue solo gameplay, but the players will still be alive after the final boss to your story has been slain.

Others have tried with more money to combine elements of both single and multiple players and failed miserably, at least in some peoples eyes.

 

I don't think you have what this game will be...I'm not sure why you think all single playe rpg's are linear as well. Actually most single player rpg's are not linear.

If you want a good example of what I mean, see Ultima 7 it had single player content but was not linear at all...matter of fact I don't think any of the ultima's. With what Richard said in the video's is we will be playing a central role in our story. It is not a just a toturial story elements to get into game. At least that is what they have said.

Before UO came there was Ultima, and it was non linear.

 

Honestly I think it's too early to call this game any one thing in particular. I don't think it will be one type of thing anymore than any other thing.

I know what I don't want it to be.

/p

 

Given the inherent flexibility, it will be different games to different people. It will be a single player game to the SPO player, a small party game to the FPO player, a multi player game to OPO players, and a PvP game to staunch PvPers. If the filter does a good job, each type player will only see other players with matching play styles, and it will be as if players with different playing styles don't even exist. Parallel universes, in a way. Close, but never touching.

 

I think they could have saved some time and money by releasing the novel and doing a very light story inside the game.

 

@Acrylic 300:

They would have lost a lot of pledges doing that. Many players, myself included, would never have pledged without the single player content.

In my case that is both because I'm a big fan of the Ultima games up to Ultima VIII, and because I don't fully trust a game with the aim of being UO's spiritual successor to be fun; the amount of PK tales about UO circulating in the Internet permanently killed my interest for that game. The solo content guarantees me something to fall back even if I dislike the multiplayer aspect.

 

Fellas, fellas, relax. The only reason we're all backing this game is because we know RG is the best at making RPGs. He's the one game developer that I have faith can deliver a game for everyone.

Yes, the game will be SP focused, but why wouldn't it be? They hired the author of the Dragonlance series to write the story line.

Don't get me wrong, I worry about the Card style combat system and, looking back at the old Ultima games, I realize that RG never quite got combat to a level I liked, but he does have decades more experience and inspiration now.

Let's at least wait until the alpha before we rant about things instead of posting suggestions and hypotheses.

 

@Silent Strider

I wasn't suggesting that it would make single player any worse. Stories generally flow in a somewhat linear path for the sake of making sense. Then the game ends up mostly if not completely linear.

Releasing a novel with the game would allow the players to know the story without having to follow the path of the story inside the game.

Use the novel to set the stage for a more open Role Playing adventure. Letting the players use their imagination to add on to the story would be the greatest story of all.

 

@Acrylic 300: A book can't do justice to the type of experience they are trying to do. I get the impression they are attempting to push the boundries of the type of story a game can tell.

They are allowing emergent behavior and PvP but as a part of a story arch they are looking to tell... that is why there are already 5 games planned. This isn't the case of the everything else is interwoven to the story. That can't be done with just a book.

As for focusing on the story vs making a UO 2. They have been very clear from the beginning on what this is... and that is what in part they are beholden to provide. Going back and making this a story light game would violate the promises they have made to the kickstarter community while asking for pledges and would be bait and switch.

In short you didn't pledge for UO 2.0... you pledged for a spiritual successor to the original ultima trilogies of trilogies. One that incorporates online play in a larger story.

Sorry if you were confused.

 

I think this is going to be an awesome epic story RPG that we'll all get immersed in. I also think this is going to be an awesome multiplayer game with tons of player created content in a living dynamic world. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other. It's a daunting task, but that's what they're committed to building.

The best parts of single player Ultimas + the best parts of Ultima Online = Shroud of the Avatar. I found this video several weeks ago when the KS first started and posted it in chat, so I'll just leave this here as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdDmFSRvZ4&t=2m36s

Richard has been trying to build exactly that for a long time. Now he's committed to doing so. Let's all work together to make sure he succeeds so both sides get what they want!

 

@Elvish Dragon [Lord]

I've played the early Ultimas on Nintendo and Amiga. I have also read the entire Dragon Lance series including Legend of Huma and Kaz the Minotaur and every other book of the series that Tracy did or didn't write.

I know it will be an awesome story and I want all aspects of this game to excel. In my original post I said, "they could have" (clearly past tense). I'm looking forward to a good NON-Dragon Lance story.

I agree that they should not do that now (present tense). They should honor all business ends of their bargains.

It was my thoughts on what could have been done, not some grand gesture to change the game.

Apology accepted. Everyone misreads once in a while, to err is human.

 

You have a point My apologies even if they are pre-accepted

I have to admit, normally I don't ever get frazzled about online conversations... but some of the ones lately have gotten me a bit frazzled.

I guess it is because we all love Ultima so much that we all feel so strongly about it. [on all sides of all the issues]