Not a true mmo? ? (Dev) Replied

The advantages here are that we will be playing a game which feels like an MMO, with the potential for a rich story and freedom to expand this story and gameplay elements akin to a singleplayer RPG.

You will potentially see as many people as an in MMO, experience the player driven economy, housing system, guilds system and PvP systems of an MMO, yet within a world largely driven by a single or multiplayer RPG storyline.

It sounds to me what should always have been done to Baldurs Gate 2 multiplayer or a Baldurs Gate 3 *drools*

 

I dont get what it feels like an mmo means? UO was a sandbox mmo.. this is a singleplayer game with multiplayer functions.. there is a big difference. just the dual-scale maps kills the whole mmo feel. I guess its all those players who quit UO because they couldnt handle griefing and getting pked... I was expecting an MMORPG. It just annoying that they put some multiplayer features in it like diablo and therfor hint that the game is an mmo. I know its going to be a single player, and im just glad Im not the only one annoyed by this

 

The dual scale map does not kill the 'MMO' feel. Consider the fact that the map is not just an illustration of a few playable locations, it is a fully formed map which you can choose to play every inch of via hexes. Think of the World of Warcraft map; you may choose to fast travel/walk across the map at will but then drop into any of the zones, Wetlands, Loch Modan, Ironforge - the map is still whole.

Sure this eliminates travel in favor of fast travel, but contemporary games already have this ability readily available in one form or another. The gameplay in essence remains very much the same. Infact, events or actions may take place as you move across the overland map and is infact more interactive than any gryphon ride or form of overland taxi. I know that this differs a great deal to Ultima Online and older games inwhich travel was a major factor, but this is not asmuch a departure to a new style of gameplay than to a new age of gaming in which many new gamers find this labourious.

SotA will not play and feel like Diablo multiplayer for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. If SotA is a game you can support in it's current incarnation, then I hope you'll support it and hold out hope (as I do) that as Richard and Portalarium gain momentum, capital and a stake in the industry, they know more than anyone how easily they could capture the market for a true successor to Ultima Online. They're exactly the right team for the job. Just perhaps not yet.

 

I am glad that this game is not going to be a clone of UO... I have said before if I want to play UO I will play UO..

I pray for something new but with a hint of what I love about Ultima and Ultima Online

 

I was hoping for a UO2 too.
Guess I will keep waiting.

 

@Koranian " I have said before if I want to play UO I will play UO.."

You know that's an unfair thing to say. Freeshards are crap, they are exploited and normally shut down for no reason. And seeing 2003 was 10 years ago, how can we play a production shard of UO?

If you are trying to say that UO in its current form (post AoS) is ANYTHING close to UO... I then want to pull all my funding from the KS based on someone who has zero knowledge of Ultima being promoted to a Moderator on these forums.

 

Koranian, should a moderator be choosing sides?

 

I think the moderation is just to prevent people from insulting each other on forums or chats.
Not related to the game content at all.
But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know for sure..

 

I think it is inappropriate for moderators to take part in the arguments, but I will leave that up to the SotA staff.

 

I wasn't saying that he/she is part of the Dev team or anything. I just think it's a huge misstep to have a Mod on here that doesn't understand the "we want UO" group... You know, like half of the people here are.

Just to explain to him/her though: When we say "we want UO", we mean the Non-Chilton UO. Not the current WoW-clone UO. Those of us who played UO miss those days, Chilton destroyed the game when it went itemized. So UO "died" then. I STILL have an active 15 year old account, but every single time I load up the window and hear stones play, I miss UO more and more. So if you're going to Mod here, understand we are all anti-Chiltons.

 

Moderators don't need to understand all the arguments. They should run the boards, and answer questions, but not participate in the arguments.

 

Wow, Owain...there are sides now?

You seem very confrontational about this. It is not an MMO in the sense the first one was. We all know this.

"If you are trying to say that UO in its current form (post AoS) is ANYTHING close to UO? I then want to pull all my funding from the KS based on someone who has zero knowledge of Ultima being promoted to a Moderator on these forums. "

I'm concerned that perhaps you have zero knowledge of what the ultima games are if you think UO is what they were and that's it.

Perhaps if we look at this as a melding of some of the features we all like then it won't get to the point it has seemed to have gotten in this thread. This will be a Singleplayer driven multiplayer experience...and I think that's great.

 

"I?m concerned that perhaps you have zero knowledge of what the ultima games are if you think UO is what they were and that?s it."

considering I never said the Ultima series is UO... That nulls your entire basis. If you'd look, I said "UO", not "Ultimas". AKA, I was staying on topic with what I commented on.

good try though man

 

Where there are arguments, there are sides. If you think there are not arguments, you are not paying attention. Moderators should not take part in arguments.

 

@Owain I agree, Mods still "speak for the company" in the eyes of the users. Even if legally that is not true. So to someone from the outside "if you want UO, go play UO" (para'd there) sounds as if we are being told to 'eff off of sorts.

I'm not saying I took it exactly like that, just saying it's the underlying appearance at quick glance.

 

Yes, I'm sure if you guys try and take over the forums you can get your way.

The Mods can have opinions if they like something...this isn't war or religion. Let's try and at least keep this civil. This is not the way to build a community.

 

Guys, our mods are just volunteer players to make sure we don't want to kill each other..
They are not developpers of the game.
They don't speak for the company ; as far as I know, they are not paid.
They just help keeping all this effective and enjoyable for us. They don't know anything more about the game that we do.
Maybe some of them won't even be on the developpers forums..

 

Moderators moderate. They have an undue influence not shared by participants. If a moderator cannot do their job impartially, and not take sides, they should not be moderators.

 

@Rune_74 I am being civil, hence me actually attempting to HELP the mod understand the "we want UO" mentality that they do not understand.

I'm simply saying it is a bad thing (we ALL have seen it) when a Mod "picks a side", it causes unrest on the forums and causes people to leave. That's bad for everyone involved.

So while they are "allowed" to have an opinion, it's always a bad choice for them to state it.

 

Yes. Moderators moderate. But since the moderation team is mostly made up of volunteer community members, there is no reason why they cannot also participate in the conversation.

At any rate. Not an MMO, not precisely. Just has some MMO-like elements to it.