Suggestions for INCENTIVISING PVP

blaquerogue, if you haven't already, please take the time to read the quote I posted above from an interview with RG. He pretty much lays out how PVP will be encouraged. I think it's an excellent model. But it's not "open pvp full loot", it's more like optional risk, with compelling and meaningful rewards.

 

The fact that subscribers declined during the same period as PvE enhancements? I don't think those are in debate.

I never claimed they had a causal relationship, which is what I believe you're challenging.

I also disagree with your statement regarding the lack of competition. EQ had more subscribers in a single year than UO did after nearly six. Not to mention that between 97' and 03' the following MMOs were released: UO, EQ, AC, Lineage, Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, Runescape, Jumpgate, Ragnarok, FS11 and several other smaller titles. Now keep in mind that while all of these games were released, UO subscriptions were still rising.

 

A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

Trammel was 2000 and marked the start of a path towards PvE. I think you'll find, while subjective, that most PvPers consider AoS to be the nail in the coffin. The numerous changes to armor and weapons absolutely killed traditional PvP combat. It was the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back". Dropped loot began to exceed the quality of player loot and items could be "insured". It was the beginning of the end of the Britannic economy.

After AoS came Samurai Empire, which aside from being completely non-canon, absolutely gutted magery. Mondain and Abyss only further expanded PvE content without any thought or focus towards PvP.

 

...which doesn't explain why UO saw a massive drop in subscriptions. If it truly does "lift all boats", then it's hard to imagine losing 60% of your subscriber base that quickly.

 

If we looked at the history of UO Subscribers, it probably looks very similar to this....

With UO playing the part of AOL and all the themepark games playing the part of Netflix.

 

You had said...

So actually it COMPLETELY explains why UO lost subscriptions. Because there was now a choice in the market, and people chose very controlled environments that were more like social networks than they were RPG's.

Starr Long recently said in an interview that he thought WOW and EQ were Facebook before there was a Facebook. I think he's dead on about that. See what I'm saying is that UO got a bump (increasing their users) as the internet became more mainstream, rising tide. But they couldn't hold onto their users because there was now too much choice. And UO wasn't created to offer the Facebook experience that EQ and WOW were. UO was still too hardcore and RPG like and the market was more social than UO could provide.

THAT is why UO lost subscribers. Trammel probably quickened the exodus, but it was never the cause.

Btw, AOL still has a few million subscribers (most of them on dial up), so the comparison of UO to AOL is very VERY good, imo. Like UO, AOL wasn't the first to come to market. UO came after Darksun Online and Meridian 59. Just like AOL came after Prodigy and CompuServe in terms of popularity. But it was AOL and UO that really were the trailblazers at that time.

But when there was a shift in the early 2000's that made the internet more accessible and offered more choices to consumers...the consumers picked something else other than AOL and UO and subscribers for both dropped, never to return. But unlike UO, AOL doesn't have a "trammel" to blame everything on. AOL can't say "Well Timewarner ruined AOL!" See how silly this would sound?

I used to work at AOL when they bought Timewarner, and I can tell you that would be about the dumbest thing anyone could say about that time period. So when I hear people saying "Trammel ruined UO"....well sure it did if you liked UO the way it was, it was a massive change. But UO wasn't going to survive the massive changes that were going to happen in the industry regardless of Trammel. Trammel was just a shot in the dark at saving a game that couldn't be saved. EQ and WOW were going to wtphwn!!1 UO and there was nothing anyone could've done to stop it.

 

I think you're missing my point about the timelines. All of those games came out before UO began to lose subscribers. It's not like all of those games came out in 2002 or 2003, many were out well before that. If they truly were the cause, you would logically expect to see a decline well before 2003/2004.

For example, another user in this thread pointed to EQ as the "downfall" to UO, but that simply isn't the case. EQ was almost immediately more popular than UO, but UO still had several years of growth after EQ came out. Again if you look at it logically, it's impossible to say "choice" killed UO, because during the biggest releases of MMO history, UO held it's own and continued to grow.

The only reasonable conclusion you can reach when looking at the evidence is that there had to have been additional factors which led to it's sharp decline. I would argue abandoning your roots is this main cause. It also doesn't help when you have two PvP-centric titles release in 2003, either.

 

This is a great example of false equivalence. You're taking two completely unrelated mediums on a graph which happens to support your narrative. I understand what you're trying to say, but using a logical fallacy isn't the way to do it.

 

The argument that Trammel killed UO is flawed at its core in several important ways.

• If there were more players that liked PVP Full Loot than did not. Then the separation of people that did not like PVP should've had no material impact to the game. Yet you're claiming it delivered the death blow to the game.
• If it's better to have a full loot open pvp environment. Then one would think that RG and Starr Long would use this model to increase the success of Shroud of the Avatar. Afterall, EA is no longer dictating what they can do, and they're self publishing SOTA, so it's "surprising" that they didn't want full loot and open pvp.
• If full loot and open pvp are superior to mechanics that do not have this functionality, then why are other games (like Darkfall) not having more success? And by more I mean, any.

 

I'd implore you to go back and re-read through my comments, as it's clear you've misconstrued some of my opinions.

I didn't say Trammel was the "death blow", I explicitly stated Trammel was the beginning of the end. While significant, I think later changes to combat and looting had a more profound and lasting effect. My opinion: the core playerbase clearly favored PvP else they wouldn't have kept giving OSI money. OSI continues to degrade the PvP experience and these users leave but are replaced with PvE users due the PvE friendly expansions. AoS comes out and absolutely guts PvP. PvP is no longer even tolerable in UO. The PvE base loses interest due to the failing economy, dated graphics, and poorly executed PvE expansions. WoW comes out nearly two years later and seals the deal.

I can't speak for their intentions, but I would love to have this discussion with them. I saw a post where Starr spoke about something regarding "throw away gear" devaluing the economy, which I categorically disagree with. Even though they're self publishing, they are still responsible to the community. I'm not foolish enough to believe that despite having a profoundly talented team like Portalarium developing that we would have nearly the support without catering to a significantly sized "PvE" population. I just wish people who are so opposed to PvP would look at the clear evidence that points to a stronger economy through open PvP and realize a vote for segregation is a vote for a weaker, fragile economy. Unfortunately fear often gets in the way of fact.

Your last question could easily be its own thread. Darkfall, specifically, suffered from a very, very rough launch...even for MMO standards. Server stability, rampant exploits at launch, etc.. all contributed to it's perceived lack of success. I say "perceived" because subscription numbers, at least offical ones, have never been released. So it's hard to quantify its success without many facts. Regardless, PvP centric games are still a niche and most likely won't enjoy the same level of subscribers as more mainstream, easier to access games. "Success" is also a subjective term. For example, A Tale in the Desert defines their success by having a very active and engaged player base. I've ran a number of private UOX/RunUO servers in addition to being a high-ranking smurf in UO. All of these experiences and I've never seen a RP community so involved as ATiTD. FYI, their subs are less than 2500.

To your last point, Eve. Just like Darkfall is a bad example of "PvP success", Eve is a great example. With subs barely over 30k when they started they've grown to over half a million. This is in a game with a PvP ruleset harsher than UO from a game that spawned this image. PvP games don't universally fail, nor do PvE games universally succeed. There are complicated explanations for both. However, Eve proves that PvP-centric games can work. Eve boasts a more active marketplace with 500k users than WoW does with 7 million. People who are truly interested in a strong economy should do some open minded research.

 

Sorry if I categorized your statements incorrectly.

When you say segregation you're really talking about non-consequential pvp. If that weakens the economy, so be it. We're not having non-consensual pvp.

But I don't think consensual pvp weakens the economy any more than it strengthens it. If players are leaving the game because all their stuff is taken from them, that's equally damaging to the economy, at best. So it's a moot point in my mind.

Recently it was disclosed by a member of the Darkfall development team that Darkfall Unholy Wars has approximately 20k subscribers and it requires 35k to keep the doors open. It's probably on its last legs. But that particular dev team is great at telling people what they want to hear, "we're working on it!" while actually finding new ways to get as much money as they possibly can. So it's my personal estimation that Darkfall will exist until they're losing so much money they are shut down by investors, banks, and debt collectors. This is just based on my own personal experience of following the development for several years though.

If you ask any investor or publisher which they'd rather have, wow or eve. You know where this is going...

Congrats to EVE. Is there any way you could tell me NOW what type of mistakes the EVE development team will make that allows their player base to leave for Star Citizen? Do you know if EVE is planning some type of "trammel" that will explain it all?

Don't get me wrong, I fully expect EVE to keep a significant amount of players simply because the technical barrier to entry for Star Citizen is going to be so high that many EVE spreadsheet enthusiasts will never make the switch, much like the 2.3 million dial up users that still pay AOL for "internet service". But I do wonder how the narrative will change when Star Citizen has 10 million subscribers, does not offer non-consensual full loot and open pvp, and yet still manages to take over the MMO genre? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

What it all boils down to is that the distructive players were upset that they no longer had unwilling sheep to kill....did this upset them? I'm sure it did.....how did the sheep feel though?

I do not want to see throwaway gear as a standard...how boring is that? Why not just play a FPS shooter where you grab a new weapon and continue fighting.

The truth is, all your points on UO failing because of trammel have been tried here before and proven to be not the case....by not only other players but devs here. It just wasn't the way you describe it...

 

I hope you're referencing the 'royal' we here. I was unaware that, while certain positions have been taken by the dev team at current, they aren't cemented in place. This is pre-Alpha, after all.

Obviously people did not leave a game because "all of their stuff is taken from them". UO enjoyed tremendous growth under an open PvP system. This is why it's important to separate fact from emotion.

It sounds like we're in agreement that Darkfall had more issues than just "open PvP" which prevented its success.

I'm not going to make that kind of presupposition. I've followed the careers of many of the UO developers for years and while I can say I don't believe they'd necessarily agree with you, I can't say it with any factual certainty. I highly, highly doubt people like Raph Koster would take that position.

I'd rather not get into hypotheticals, but I will indulge you a little by saying 'I don't know'. However, I can ensure you I'll be there to do the autopsy and review the facts.

Star Citizen, another great example of a game that supports full PvP and swimming in cash. I think Eve and Star Citizen share very few commonalities other than their setting (space). Star Citizen is much more of a combat flight-sim than Eve. It will be interesting to see how people react.

Again, false equivalence on the AOL front. You're also wrong about Star Citizen not supporting open PvP. Chris Roberts has spoke ad-nauseum about how even in protected areas players can be attacked. The only difference is people will be able to openly attack them back via bounties. Anyone else think this sounds incredibly similar to 'flagging grey'? You're partially right about loot, insofar as we don't have enough data to understand how loot will work at this time.

 

I think it's bad taste to label either side of this argument, be it 'sheep' or 'wolf'. Besides, it's a poor attempt at an appeal to emotion; devoid of factual merit or any semblance of critical long term thinking.

What would you rather have, someone using 2-3 sets of armor per month or 2-3 sets of armor per hour? Which scenario benefits the economy and its crafters more? This is your choice. I'd rather have an economy where crafters were incredibly valuable, with their work outpacing anything that drops off static mobs with predictable intelligence and exploitable behavior.

I've yet to see anyone "prove" anything. We're not looking for some smoking gun or missing link. We're discussing complex social and economic issues where a multitude of factors and influences must be considered to even have an informed opinion, let alone "proof".

 

say what you want but I for one stopped playing uo because of trammel, I might could have endured the rest of the bs that was going on, but to me the trammel manuever made me as a dedicated player feel cast out, a pariah, I have no place for such horse dookie in my life, I moved on.

 

the current system I think leaves us out that don't like PVP but liked the risk of being pked at any time
and also the fact of knowing the good players from the bad
and the criminal aspect of it all

I think all that is gone with current system and don't see any reason to play because of it

maybe things have changed, since its been months when I gave up even up with any hope for the game
i'll still keep checking back in case things ever change

 

I am not sure why the UO pre-tram model is being used here.

SotA is instanced, selective multi player is even tighter instaning, and the meta server filters players out. So the all in open PvP of pre-tram can not be applied. Even if SotA was full open PvP it would be nothing like UO pre-tram.

 

I hope this thread gets "locked" soon (it's so off topic), it's just the same old argument "UO v The rest of the Gamers", Bla, Bla, Bla BS...

I hope Mr Starr Long is reading, and listens to Mr Richard Garriott there is a Winner in this game, a Million player Winner... Let them flag PvP, let them have full Loot if they're flagged. just leave me out of it... I like duels, I like arenas, I like guild wars, I like factions, I like zones I can stay out of when marked, I like selective Play...

Don't listen to the "1%ers", the rest of us matter too...

I was hoping to see some new creative responses to give me "incentive" to join PvP, but I'm still waiting... The contraband Quest was pretty interesting, but if it's "full loot" I'll have to sprint through it naked, maybe "play dead"... something hilarious...

 

Ahh, no... UOs growth was actually pretty flat, and never got above 258,000 members (that was total, as many players like myself, had two accounts or more), I can't find it now, but I seen a chart showing WoW, UO and many other games at the time, many games other than UO reached 1,000,000 players, WoW taking top spot at 6,000,000 at the time (I heard it peaked at 10,000,000 and since has declined)... There was like 5 games that crossed the Million player mark, soon to decline after launch... Within 3 years or so, after launch, as I think most players are not really dedicated to spend hours playing everyday... And dropping their alt accounts...

UO was just the first game of it's kind, Mystic or EA Games whatever will always leave the servers up to claim the longest running game in history (still has 100,000 open accounts, but many are playing on Freeshards)... It started before High Speed Internet was available, I started on a Dialup, moved to 1mbps DSL to free up my land line... Long before Cell service was out...