Why not to make MMO? ? (Dev) Replied

I rly dont understand it. If u want to make a single player game like ultima or mmo like uo OK.but why would u mix it all together?when its obvious that mmo part of players are not gonna get alot of the game.Why not to create a world where we all can exist together?with small fisherman vilages and big miner cities like moria from lord of the rings.U will allways will be safe there.if u want some rare ore u will have to take risk and get out of the city for it.(same thing what rg plans for sota)with dangerous areas full of mtstic creatures ,thug camps and many other things.I really believe that u can minimize interactions between hardcore sp and pvp lovers.
Neutral towns with marketplaces where blues and reds can trade with each other.
Specially now when we need UO type of MMO so badly.Even if u lost your gear u knew that u can get a new one wothout farming 62718484728292 hours or spendibg loads of money on it.balance was.......close to perfect?
And last thing....maybe i am missing something but so far most of the people want to see ultima/uo type of ingame view.and i understand why...as for me im simply sick of hundreds same type of hacknslash mmo 3d games.People simply have no options right now.

Monthly subscription? Not a problem i believe...
Will take an exta year or two to nake it happen?year is nothing for Ultima fan
Your thoughts?

P.S.Sorry for my english.

 

They said yesterday that making 3D game is cheaper than 2D.

 

They are going to make a story-driven world with several episodes, which wouldn't work in an MMO environment (all the players would rush to complete the story line which would force them to log at the same time when particular event is about to happen etc.).

 

@KFC yes i am aware of it. He never said they are making it 3d cuz its cheaper.he said ita cheaper to make 3D.
@BK they can make it like blizzard did with D3.for example.u complete story in online single player than after that system scans u so when u go to public server NPC Still remember tour achievmebts,status etc. And since u are on the server u will have no possibility to cheat.

 

I think cost has affected the decision on creating this game.

Servers and networking infrastructure are by no means cheap and funding this project via kick starter is a clear indication that Richard intends to provide an awesome game and international servers could not of been budgeted in for 1mill..

Everyone wants another Ultima Online - all the developers know this blatantly, maybe if we exceed the kicks tarter target fund they will change the scope

I will own you noobs so hard.

Regards

The master of ownage

 

I agree that an MMO evironment would be more immersive. I'm interested to see the specifics of how they plan to implement the "multiplayer" portion.

 

There are two different camps here.. The Ultima guys and the UO guys. Each wants two opposite things. The game cannot satisfy us both.

 

@Avenger thats why we need to come up with solution.mmo with really good designed sp option within .or offline with option to play on server(2 games basicly). Or we need an answer feom RG.because alot of people still think of uo2 when they give they money on KS.

 

Let me be clear, I have nothing wrong with an UO-like game. If it were up to me, though, I'd invest my resources in a fully single player Ultima. I think that the MMO market is saturated and it is going to be VERY difficult to carve up some space.

I know that a sizeable part of the user-base belongs to the UO "faction" but there is also another sizeable faction to which all those who grew up playing Ultima 1-9 belong. And it's going to be very difficult to satisfy them both.

I don't care about housing, crafting, taming in a single player Ultima.. I care about story, meaningful NPCs, compelling quests and so on. These are two very different game styles.

 

Richard can do this.

 

I think a good compromise, would be to do something like the first 20 levels of AoC. Ie you play in the same world but can toggle(in aoc it was day/night) between single player and multi-player. Using a method like this you could toggle single-player do all your solo single player quests but when you want to rp/interact with other people toggle multi-player and interact that way. And for those that don't know what I am talking about, its free to play try out AoC and play a bit of the first 20 levels its actually quite innovative.

 

The more I sit and ponder about SOTA, I slowly find myself envisioning a skill based game in which many of the activities possible in Ultima Online are possible within the single player game itself. The ability for the playerbase to network to a certain degree within towns, be it vendors, trade boards or marketplaces etc, giving the game the scope and connectivity to allow for the UO brand of gameplay in a multiplayer game (as opposed to a MMORPG).

The one thing that troubles me however, is that in this current market, the majority of players will be begging (post launch) to exapand the scope to which players can interact. Future expansion to allow towns to be hubs (similar to Guild Wars) would be my first thought.

Perhaps allowing the major city of the land to expand in this manor, allowing live marketplaces to exist similar to that found in Ultima Online; that would be fantastic.

 

There is a certain amount of multiplayer in, it will be on the scale of tens of players rather than hundreds. So by the sound of it we will have plenty of player to player interaction. Its only a portion of all the players that will be available to interact with.

If there are 20 people around honestly that does not change too much from the mmo where you'd interact directly with only a few other players at a time.

 

I also think that in theory there might be more interaction if the game presents other players who are most like you. I am intreaged by the proposed system. When I play WoW I tend to be annoyed when I come across players during quests. I end up having to wait for respawns of whatever I am going after.

 

I think the model they are discussing could end up being much better than a wide open MMO, insuring that the players you do encounter are much more relevant to your playstyle, story, and character (whether friend or enemy).

If we are allowed to select certain flags, and in addition, the game tracks our playstyle and matches us with similar players, I would prefer that quite a bit to seeing random people with ridiculous names clog up most of the cities and trade hubs.

 

I have never played an Ultima game. Did those games have anything like a guild?

 

Personally I imagine they will release all five episodes over a period, and then perhaps look at SotA Online.

Perhaps they are already building in the potential for the persistent world to be merged in to a MMORPG. We just do not know.

On the other hand, maybe they also wanted to develop a SP game on the whole, build up a new brand, then step forward with an MMO directly related. It makes sense.

 

Perhaps, but I personally hate to wait 5 more years before the MMO version... I want it asap.

 

I understand... I've been waiting since AoS for a new Ultima MMO.

 

I'm in the crowd that would prefer an MMO. Part of the fun, for me, is interacting with people I wouldn't otherwise. And yes, I know they've said players will be matched to us according to where we are in the game and such, but that isn't quite the same as an open world. I've enjoyed bumping into people -- lots of people -- totally different from me.

But I understand that for what they're trying to do, an MMO isn't the most practical option right now. It seems they're trying to reach a broader range of people rather than only MMO players. The "story-driven" bit is the part I'm not sure about, personally. I'm wondering exactly how that will play out and if it will be like other games where there's not much compelling stuff to do once the story is complete. I'd like to think that this being a Lord British game, the story will be ongoing, MMO or not.