Disappointed so far

I will answer you quite easily. UO during the time RG was involved in it. About the first 3 to 4 years. Before it was sold. I played while there was just one world, played after trammel was made. The main reason for the creation of trammel, at least it seemed to me a the time, was because of the huge demand there was for new housing spaces.

Let me clear out that pvp is not the only factor which i had in mind when i created this forum, as ive said before i am not a big pvp, there are other aspects involved here.

 

The point that most PvP advocates fail to see is that by the mere fact of being threatened by PvP makes me play as a PvPer. If I wish to mine in a PvP-enabled zone then armor and weapon class become my concern, as well as gear and resource loss, fear of attack and all the other things that pertain to PvP. None of this has anything to do with my core interest of mining and crafting. It become a a drain on my playstyle that affords me no desirable advantage. The Full open PvP advocates have forced me to play their game even if I never get attacked.

 

There's more than just the crowdfunds in play, yes. How much more is unknown.

But certainly the crowdfunds are a significant portion of the budget that's in play.

I heard somewhere that Obsidian Entertainment costs about $1,000,000/month to run, once you factor in all the various costs of operating the studio. Now they've got 100-120 employees, whereas SotA has a team of just over 30 working on it. So let's assume Portalarium has a monthly operating cost that's about a quarter of Obsidian's...$250,000/month. The game has been in development for at least 14 months; that's a cost of $3.5 million so far. Another $750,000 gets us to October, the planned release date. Another $1,000,000 takes us to February of 2015, which I suspect will be announced as the new planned release date based on the extension of the payment plan terms.

So we're up to...$5.25 million as an estimate? So Portalarium needs to have at least $1 million (and change) of additional funding outside of the crowdfunds.

Now, back in 2012, the company did close out a financing round with around $7 million in venture capital & angel investments. But how much of that went to Ultimate Collector, and how much was allocated to the then-nascent Ultimate RPG, is unknown. (I would assume more went to UC than to the URPG, simply because UC was the main project at the time.)

 

And well it seemed to me that the time that the intention of creating this game, at least at the beggining was to make a sequel to UO, that was got me going.

He clearly states "...I would call in UO2 if I could..." So i believe I do have a right to be dissappointed, and I did back the game, blindly perhaps, yet I still have a right to expect things from it and to express them.

 

You are missing my point though.

It's not that this was supposed to be UO2, it's that the people who came from a UO background rather than single player cannot be written off given what he has said in the past. By no means am I calling for full open PvP, because I know it will not happen. As far as I am concerned those posts are white noise, and you really have no reason to respond to them. As far as your question goes, it would be the same sort of white noise for me.

What I object to is that anytime UO is even mentioned the usual posters jump into every thread saying this is not uo, go play freeshards etc. It makes us feel very unwelcome. While you may not do it yourself, there are plenty of posters here who do. This is the reason I took a break from the forums for a long while as it is disheartening.

Basically long story short is that there are very vocal people on both sides of the coin. The difference is that the vocal people calling for full open PvP are not going to get it, but the people calling for more restrictions on pvp on top of what we already have may still cause some damage to the open immersive feel of the game. That is what I am worried about.

 

Point of order: this is revisionist history. UO was never sold. It was always an EA-published game.

That was one reason, yes. But equally, had it been the only reason, they wouldn't have made Trammel PvP-free; it would have been just another facet (that's the term, no?), adding more housing space but still sporting open PvP.

And keep in mind that this design decision occurred while RG was still at Origin.

Which is also worth considering. An RG-designed UO2 would probably have had a similar PvP/PvE separation to UO post-Trammel. Origin wouldn't have reverted to the older gameplay model, not after dealing with all the issues associated therewith.

Have you mentioned these other issues? I can't recall.

 

They may have needed new land, but if the pvp system was fine as it was, why make Trammel no-pvp? Why not just expand the land? I'm sure that would have been cheaper than having to program new game mechanics for it. If it was such a perfect system why has no mainstream game, interested in making a profit, done it? Why has every game that's tried it since then either gone under or become no more than a niche game? I'm not just talking about the Felucca mechanics while on that side. I'm talking about free-for-all, non-consensual, with no options for consensual, that some are lobbying for.

Yes I was there too, so no one has to tell me how things were. I know exactly how it was. I had quit UO because of the pks and griefers and never would have returned, ever. It was the most horrible gaming experience I've ever had. But then they announced Trammel and made a point of announcing that it was no-pvp. So I went back just prior to it opening so I could get a good house spot when it went live. A lot of others returned to UO as well, people who had been driven away as I was, and only because of Trammel. I was there for the big land rush. And it really was a rush. Felucca emptied out and Trammel was almost completely full within the first half hour. I think that whole experience spoke volumes.

 

Ok, as you said, there are vocal folks on both sides and I think some get a little defensive on both sides, after the arguments go on & on. It's easy to forget who said what early on in a thread. You should not let yourself feel disheartened though. Just give frequent disclaimers, hehe. I've found, with my own posts being so non-pvp, that if I don't frequently repeat my disclaimers that I have friends who pvp and am therefore absolutely not against pvp, some people start planning their KOS lists with me at the top. lol. As much as I hate repeating myself, sometimes I think it's necessary as it avoids some of the side arguments. I think the reverse happens too & some people start getting on non-pvpers' nf's list, by the time some threads reach a certain size where everything is buried and we're all arguing the fine points.

I agree about the white noise part, but on the other hand, if people keep coming and agitating for the pre-tram pvp and if no one ever speaks out against it, the impression that will give over time is that a "majority" want it and no one is protesting it. I doubt this team would be swayed necessarily, but the potential is always there. Speaking for myself, the very idea of SotA ever going that route literally raises the hair on the back of neck.

 

Good post, I agree entirely. I think your second paragraph sums up why both sides do it.

 

Even when RG was in control, they abandoned the non-consent PvP model.

UO had non-consent PvP for like 18 months and consent for 15 years. A spiritual successor to UO should be expected to follow the model the game has had pretty much its entire life.

 

I'm also a bit disappointed in where this game is going to. My expectations of SotA were a mix of the Ultima series and UO.
I don't expect this game to be exact copy of Ultima Online, but atleast I kind of expected the devs would take some of the UO core elements to SotA. Because hey, it's still a multiplayer game and most backers are UO fans.

What UO made so great in my opinion is the PvP system and the 'open' world you could explore. I don't want to use that overlay map when I move out of an area. I want to go there, wander through the woods (even if it takes me hours to get there), carry my loot, hoping not the get killed by a PK. I want some challenge, some risk. I want that adrenaline. As far as i've read the forums here (I'm new) and followed the dev talks, this game will be dull and not really rewarding. I'm afraid this game gets easily boring because of the lack of challenges. I don't understand why losing 'all your stuff' when getting killed is such a big deal here.

And yes, I don't care about RP but I like a good story and adventure. That's the only positive thing I could (so far) discover about SotA. I think the offline mode/story element will be great. So that's a plus.
Oh and, what about the character models? I haven't read much about that so excuse me if I missed that part. But, the characters aka avatars look like they're imported from a game out of the year 2004.

I was really looking forward to SotA when Richard kicked off with the Kickstarter project. But now a days I'm not very enthusiastic as I was before.

There's this game Rust, also being developed by a 'small' indie team and also in Alpha state. These guys atleast seem to get it: One open world, survival, build your own houses, a **** ton of items and the risk of losing everything.

 

I agree with the OP . . disappointed .. just in a different way. I see the potential and it has a LONG way to go.

I just feel (especially after this latest update) that there is less concentration on an actual GAME and more of just "hey .. we'll make more and more stuff for you to purchase"

I just feel they spend all of their time coming up with new ways to create more virtual goods in the game rather than the gameplay itself. I know . .its early .. but I feel like the mechanics and gameplay should be first and foremost, but most of the updates we see are regarding new cosmetics ... new founder items, new houses, new basements, etc.

I wonder how this game will be received at E3 in its current state. Will it be laughed at amongst the big players with its clunky graphics and old-school style gameplay? Or will it be lauded as a triumphant kickstarted community-based game free from the constraints of the big corporations?

 

As an avid Wow player and ex UO player I have no idea where you got the medieval wow feeling from, its as far removed from wow as any MMO released recently.

 

* WoW is class based where everyone has the same exact build for their class that is min/maxxed
* WoW is level based.
* WoW has content that is level gated. You go from this level zone to another level zone
* WoW is completely linear because of the level gates
* WoW is quite literally pay to win now that you can pay a fee to skip to max level
* WoW doesn't have a deep story.
* WoW doesn't have an offline mode
* WoW doesn't have everyone on one server
* WoW doesn't have friend's lists to select who you want in your instances
* WoW doesn't have player towns and non-instanced houses
* WoW doesn't allow you to loot anything when you kill someone
* WoW has immersion breaking PvP battleground that you poof to and from
* WoW is utterly faction based
* WoW has no crowd sourced assets
* WoW doesn't have player performance spaces to encourage roleplay
* WoW is a gear treadmill
* WoW has rote combat where you perform the exact same combat rotation
* WoW has more UI than visible screen space
* WoW only lets you craft gear to cater more to the gear treadmill
* WoW doesn't have ghosts or a neat death system
* WoW doesn't integrate PvP into lore and quest (like the Oracle questline)

I sincerely tire of these ridiculous statements that UO was solely about non-consent PvP and full loot, when it hasn't forced that on anyone in 15 years. Not even UO is about that. And people insist that if SotA doesn't have it, then it is absolutely nothing like UO. Or they claim that without non-consent and full loot, then SotA is just like WoW. These statements have no basis in factual reality. I find it hard to take people seriously when they repeat such claims that have been routinely and thoroughly refuted.

 

Well, it'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I played UO during that open PvP era. I, along with several friends gravitated there from Sierra's "The Realm" which I'd played from beta on. It's interesting to me now, seeing what gaming has become that back then those with the vision of what an MMO could be were few and far between. I remember how we organized following some spirited discussions and bombarded Sierra with emails because they had planned to shelve what had become our beloved home which was still in beta. I remember calling the Sierra head over and over and telling him that they were clueless as to what they had; it wasn't simply a "game" but rather a virtual community. At the end of the day we the players won (probably something about us convincing them we'd pay to play) but sadly the games combat got nerfed after which the only way to get your adrenaline pumping was PvP.

Initially that's kind of how it started in UO too.. at least that's how I recall it. Then suddenly it changed....somehow it seemed to become a mean spirited thing. Maybe it was a thing of the people who'd been bullied in RL feeling like they could now get even with the world. IDK....I didn't really have anything against the lone wolf types who just wanted a challenge; you had your options....you could rapidly port your butt out or... if in the mood you could battle it out. However when it became gangs of wanna be thugs out stealing what I'd busted my butt working for my attitude changed. That along with housing bugs that went unfixed and the PK's who would hide...seemingly forever....near houses (there weren't that many back then) to PK you and steal your key (that was such a dumb system) just got really annoying. So I guess I'm saying for those who think the only way to have a decent game is to have a total PvP free for all it just aint so.

Aside from that...I tend to agree with those who have commented that it seems there has been too much energy spent on (IMO) overpriced store goodies and too little on gameplay and graphics that compete in 2014! I Do hope this works out well....I see a lot of potential but I'm going to have to see a lot more before I pony up more of my bux. Another thing.. and maybe it's just me... but....the last video I clicked to check out new developments did not impress me at all. Here's the thing...if you want my money.... then you'd best come into the meeting prepared and not just getting all "look at how geeky cool I am" but not knowing what the hell you're going to be doing. I was really kind of astounded to hear that come out of the guys mouth. Seriously... If I walk into a business meeting and say.. hey.. I don't know what I'm supposed to do but.. check me out.. I'm cool.... send money.... before long the bank is going to be hassling me about unpaid mortgage bills and my ass is going to be out in the street. I'll have to sell my stuff because I don't have an auto replenishing food plant and my kids demand to be fed.... regularly.

My last thought (I seldom post so I'll get it out now) is that there is no way in hell this game is going to be ready for prime time by October... at least not 2014. I'd be happily surprised if it was ready to start closed beta by that time. Heck though... I've been wrong before...

Flame me if you want...but that's my virtual 2 cents. As for my RL bux....they're staying in the bank for now.

EDIT: Just to be clear...I'm not trying to dis anybody here. I've played several games over the years since I started in '95. I was stuck at home on workers comp after tossing my back. LOL at the time....I told the guy (my gf's 18 y/o son) "Dude....I'm 40 years old....I don't play games". In all that time UO remains my all time favorite game.....This is a huge and ambitious undertaking but just keeping it real it's one hell of a seriously competitive world out there right now. My fingers remain crossed.

 

Its not coming out in October, its coming out Q1 of next year at the earliest (I think), they set the date back, because like you say, there was no way in hell they would have made that date, my signature is from Starr Long.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Welcome to the forums, btw.

 

That's great you want to have that experience, but don't expect to force that same experience on other people. PvP should always be consensual. As for Rust, its not as popular as 7 days to die which has controls to pick who plays with you or not. If its your cup of tea, then more power to you. Do expect to play with like minded people in such a game.

Yes please do enjoy the game as you can, but don't expect to make everyone else go through the same experience.

I have played since OSI was beta and pvpd in WoW extensively, but it should always be opt in.

 

With regards to non-consensual PVP: personally, I love it. I love full-loot and I love non-consent PVP (even as a good guy) because it's realistic and doesn't ruin my immersion.

So my question is: if we select "friends only multiplayer" and only add friends who will have PVP enabled, can we effectively create the illusion of a full non-consensual PVP world? The reason I ask is because from what I've read, it sounds like we kind of can, and this may appease both sides of this debate.

 

I agree it *can* be fun; the majority of my PvP experience was as the guy wearing a white hat..at least early on. I was the guy people would call on to come and right a wrong so to speak. I enjoyed hunting down jerks. PvP can make for a more realistic experience however, it can be a real PITA for those who have no interest in it. I think what *I* find annoying is the bully type of PvP where a high level person was always targeting much weaker players. People play for many reasons and, not everybody has the time to spend to create a character all maxxed out and with all the best stuff which gave an advantage. I think one of the coolest things about UO back when I played it was that unlike many modern games it wasn't about grinding away mindlessly just doing the same thing over and over; "kill 20 of these... now go kill 30 of those". The other thing about many modern games (IMO) is the overly long Raid events. People are busy...you don't always have 4 hours to devote to a gaming session. On the flip side...at least in a Raid you had the opportunity to do something other than face the same dub AI Mob's you met grinding. It's tough to try and be all things to all people. I'm glad to see the original target for SotA has been pushed back. Better to take more time and have the end product as god as you can reasonably get it.