Disappointed so far

Your right, I confused you and Maxe. I do apologize for that

 

It's not anecdotal. The UO devs themselves cited it as they saw it in official stats. And then when the world split happened, we saw what side everyone ended up on. Opting to deny documented facts can be a personal prerogative, but it isn't something I care to indulge.

 

People then and now confuse the gross mismanagement of the game by EA and the various development teams over the years as being a flaw of UO's game design which needed fixing. It wasn't. Good luck in proving your assertions as facts. The very games cited in this thread like Day Z are worldwide phenomenons. Multiplayer and specifically PvP are also by and large the biggest draws in online gaming across all genres. PvP and emergent gameplay (such as what was once in UO) are here to stay.

 

The devs themselves said they knew the high player turnover and all the new players leaving right away were due to PK griefing, and we saw the way the world split happened. That had zero to do with EA "mis-management". That was a decision made solely on PvP model. People voted with their wallets and world selections. We know precisely how this goes down every single time. You can't argue against documented facts with strawman.

PvP is a huge draw. Non-consent, full-loot PvP are not. The most popular games in the world all do center on PvP, but they allow players to re-enter and play again without penalty. The gameplay itself is rewarding and fun, not punitive, not does it specifically reward griefing.

 

Thank you for the apology, good sir.

 

Your whole argument is based around citing facts but instead they are conclusions drawn based on anecdotal evidence. There is no proof of causality.

 

Even though I just mentioned Day Z you are still insisting on making an absolutist statements with regard to PvP rules and their relationship with a game's popularity. I do appreciate the admission of the popularity of PvP, but you're oversimplifying a complex problem and drawing conclusions about causality.

 

So arguments that oppose yours are more or less (in your words) "based on anecdotal evidence", or "drawing conclusions about causality" or "absolutist"?

 

DayZ sounds like a great game but it is still only a niche game which is only going to appeal to a small group. That's fine in and of itself but when you add that niche with the niche of people who loved the old ultima games etc then your getting down to a very small group and it probably wouldn't have even made its kickstarter goal.

Compare Darksouls 2 sales to Skyrim for example. 1.2 million for Darksouls 2 which is quite impressive (though I do wonder about its longevity) but Skyrim on the other hand sold over 20 million. DayZ itself has had 1.7 million players (according to its own site) and probably there are players who are on this list twice and remember this is still FREE so if people play it and don't like it they have lost what?

and we still get back to the fact that if they suddenly change it to UO2 then that would be breach of contract

THIS is what the game was sold on

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/468235/video-215059-h264_high.mp4

 

You cite one game and claim I'm focusing on anecdotal data?

League of Legends is a pure PvP game, and it has over 3,000,000 concurrent players daily. The PvP isn't punitive. It isn't full loot. You die and you go right back in the game.

Day Z is literally the single most popular game online that I can find stats for that supports your model (listing XBox Live stats, Google searches, Steam stats, etc). It has 10,329 daily players according to Steam.

3,000,000 > 10,329.

World of Warcraft isn't a pure PvP game, but it has 12,000,000 subscribers. 12,000,000 > 10,329.

I can cite easily 20 games off memory that have over 1 million concurrent players that are PvP focused, and none of them have the PvP model you're talking about. The game you're citing as evidence has 10,000 players. If you were to add the millions from all those other games, and compare them to 10,000 players, you have at best anecdotal evidence on your part.

Furthermore, ignoring devs citing official stats they saw is nothing short of burying your head in the sand. Ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit what you're trying to sell while only citing anecdotal evidence and accusing others of only citing anecdotal evidence doesn't help your case in the least.

The market has spoken REPEATEDLY. There are a few games that cater to that niche market. And they are niche games. They're available, and I'm glad they are. The market should offer choice so all gamers are happy.

 

It's anecdotal evidence for us; it's hard data that RG, and other ex-UO devs, had access to

You don't have to convince me, you know; rather, you have to convince the dev team.

You might also want to consider the following quote, from a moderator that preserved in a post some of what the devs said in the site chat:

The bit about support calls is something I saw in a Markee Dragon interview with Gordon Walton and Rich Vogel. It was quite interesting because, while Markee Dragon and the interviewed devs loved the open PvP aspect in UO, the devs acknowledged the issues that PK activity caused.

Actually, forced PvP only existed in UO during its first two years. The game that has been a cash cow for the last 14 years or so does not force PvP on players.

It's fact, actually. All the biggest PvP games — LoL, DotA2, TF2, Counter Strike, Call of Duty, and so on — are effectively fully consensual PvP games because there is nothing to do in their PvP modes apart from fighting other players.

DayZ is an outlier. But, with the way death works there, the whole concept is different. It takes a few hours, or less, to reach the pinnacle of power in that game, and when the player dies he is brought to the starting point again. It's just a short adrenaline-fueled romp, rather than a drawn out conflict like early UO.

 

I really wish I had saved that essay on why UO (as launched) worked and why it was doomed and wouldn't work now. I remember it was written by one of the devs but I can't remember which one (think it MIGHT have been Lum but not sure)

 

Depending on what you mean by "rich", SotA either will or won't provide it. (If you specifically mean non-consensual PvP, that's not going to happen.)

Of course, it's worth noting that most "silent majority"-type claims are taken, at best, with a grain of salt.

But if what you say is true, then these long-waiting folks should look into Shards Online. If they're as numerous as you claim, their combined contributions might just be enough to save that game's lagging Kickstarter campaign.

 

I find it very funny how there are people asking for the ultimate reality based game where you can plant seeds and grow wheat and mill that wheat to make flour and then bake a nice bread yet are against you being able to get randomly killed and fully looted.

If you are walking down the street, cant you get randomly killed and fully looted?

And dont take me wrong I hated pks, I hated them coming all of a sudden and looting all my stuff, my gold, my silver weapon etc, but they were part of what made playing special.

Once I was happily walking out of brit mounted on a horse and this nice fellow starts talking to me, i was still a newbie back then. We were having this nice conversation when says that he had some spare wheat and that i could have to feed my horse. "ty" and i unmounted and fed my horse. All of a sudden this bastard starts attacking my horse! Without thinking it i attacked him, he had turned grey the moment he attacked my horse. Then a pk friend of his appears all of a sudden and i get my ass kicked. So much anger, so much fun! I had to watch them loot all my stuff and then run back to the healers.

Consensual pvp sucks. period. Instead of it just make dueling arenas, its the same thing. Its pointless.

Dying and just having half your equipment looted and the rest magically appearing is unrealistic. pointless.

Just like in real life, areas can have more or less protection from pvp and pk assaults, say a radius around certain towns where the Kings Peace is strong, which may go as far as certain dungeons, can be within the reach of the protection, weakening along the way. Certain other towns with weaker lords may be more vulnerable. Warring lords would be great too, political system, feudalism, etc, all those things could be used in favor of the game with the game. So much can be accomplished here and somehow the potential this game could have might as well go to waste as well.

BTW I got interested in this game before it even had a name. I was nostalgic and I started playing UO in one of those independed servers and while playing there, that was like 3 years ago and finding that it was no fun with so little people (id spent my time mining and crafting) I started browsing about RG and the possibility of some UO2. At that time it seemed to me that the intention was to make an MMO as similar as possible to UO without using the Ultima name because of its copyright. Brittannia was copyrighted as well so he was calling it NewBrit or something like that, and that was the intention I saw originally in what I read and saw in the interviews. I own a business that I started from scratch which has taken a lot of my time, therefore for a long time I couldnt keep up with what was going on. Yet I pledged right from the beginning. I had friends pledge because of all the good things I talked to them about how UO had been. One of them was even considering spending like 800 in his pledge, but became disillusioned and retracted from spending so much.

 

Great way to go moderator.

If you dont take the opportunity to provide a huge host of people, the thousands who played UO and payed it every month for a long time, what they are looking for, someone will.

and perhaps you guys will have gathered 4millions in a kickstarted but you may end up loosing much more than that on the long run.

Keep up the good work of suggesting the people who have supported you to go find what they want in another game and perhaps it will become true.

 

Sure, if I was walking down the street I could get randomly killed and looted. The difference is, were talking about a video game that is supposed to be FUN. Sorry, but playing for hours on end to earn a Legendary Keen Blade of Magnificent A$$kicking, just to have some goofball barely beat me and loot it at random is not what I consider to be fun.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I strongly disagree with you when you say consensual PvP sucks and is pointless.

 

If there is such a thing here as a Legendary Keen Blade of Magnificent Asskicking, then rest assured i dont want to play this game.

WoW WoW WoW

 

how many times have you been murdered and looted walking down the street?

 

At about 33 minutes in. Yes, it's from 2009 and a lot has changed, but my point remains.

 

Allow me to direct you to my thread here which explains briefly exactly what I mean.
By 'rich' I mean thrilling, rewarding, diverse, skillful, challenging and well designed. Not a narrow PvP system such as a couple of PvP quests or a duelling system or 1 resource rich area being flagged for PvP and hence becoming pure chaos - as I sometimes fear is the direction SotA might take to tick off the 'PvP created' box.

I don't mean a 2D Shards Online with 10yrs old graphics engine and all PvP, but thanks tho

I know what I say is true. PvP is the main attraction to most people (including every gamer I know irl), if the PvP is bad in a certain game, it's written off right then and there. That doesn't mean they want an all PvP game.. it means they want a great MMO with all it's features of PvE and crafting etc. - but with PvP as an end game goal for them personally. (not forced or the only end game goal)

I mean come on.. some of us have been gaming several hours a day for the last 10-15yrs. We've tried a good number of MMOs, each failing in one or more aspects and thus we developed high expectations regarding that genre. SotA is the best bet so far at 'the perfect MMO' =)

Also want to add that while I'm about as dreamy and reality-escapistic as they come. I'm 34, not 14.. simply getting too old for the whole pretending to be Lord Maxe for 10 hours a day. I don't understand the guys who want to immerse themselves into RP - are you very casual 5 hours a week gamers? (nothing wrong with that)