[Rant] A Generation Of Gamers That Dont Know What Role Play Is ? (Dev) Replied

The stick approach will never work. This is like telling a suicide bomber that he may go to jail or at least get a big fine. You need to give people another more appealing story to play in the game. Get rid of PK. Give people an option to fight in a circumstance that is optional and balanced for all involved.

Balanced PvP does work. Many times more people play LoL and DOTA every day than all MMOs combined.

 

Yet it's also one of the things UO was famous for (allowing and creating), at least early on. It's probably what a lot of people on these very forums remember as part of a "fond memory".

I hate being ganked, I don't like gankers, I'm adverse to playing games with mechanics that allow players to easily manipulate the game at others expense. Yet I'm pro-stealing, pro-full loot, pro-pvp, pro-bounty system...

I would like to think that over the last 20 years, you guys have thought a lot about how to improve on your old model without putting nerf gloves on everyone. It's a very difficult subject to speak to and to design around...but I think that most people would be ok with having "bandits" stop them on a bridge, or in a mountain pass, or out at sea....if 1) They had an opportunity to run away (while maybe at a small cost - like it increased their travel time or they had to travel an even more dangerous route) or 2) They weren't getting killed before they even knew what happened. I think if you guys could figure out a way to do this, you'd solve the ganking problem.

 

I liked the gankers.
I think the fun of it was that I liked escaping from gankers.
Or maybe it was the calling in players who would chase off the gankers.
Or it could of been playing hide and seek with the gankers.
Or how to get your ore smelted and flee from the gankers.

I don't know but in the end I liked having gankers there.

 

Spoken with true ignorance. People who 1337 spoke like that were truly in the minority. Just because people like that gained high notoriety and press does not mean that this is all there was to UO. There is a reason that the old version of UO has thousands of active players playing on private free servers, go check it out.

Secondly, this game is the next UO. According to Lord British himself. Do your research please.



@Sir_Tim

I agree with everything you said. It is why I argue vehemently that we should be able to create more than a single character, to be able to role-play different roles, both light and dark, war monger and pacifist, artisan and magi. Having your character become all at once is ridiculous and cuts out too much possibility of interaction and exploration of your role.

 

Wrong.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?page_id=19#faq_06
"But is this the Ultima sequel I’ve been waiting for?

This is NOT an “Ultima”, as that is a trademark owned by Electronic Arts. Ultima fans know though, that great RPG’s can be played anywhere; on earth, in space, in Britannia and in many other lands. I am creating a new land for Shroud of the Avatar, which will adhere to the design principles that all of my FRPG games adhered to. Please read my series of Developer Blogs, “What is a Lord British Ultimate RPG”, for more details."
https://www.portalarium.com/index.php/products/ultimate-rpg?id=93

 

You read it too literally. It does not have to carry an Ultima name for it to be the next Ultima Online. It is a spiritual successor to UO, it isn't called UO2 because RG couldn't get the rights for that. He said so himself, do some research, he even had talks with EA about it. Just because it doesnt have the license does not mean its not the game we're talking about....

Did you even read that second link? It talks about this being the successor to UO
He even asked what players think and want...
http://ultimacodex.com/2012/08/rich...put-on-uo-style-pvp-housing-for-ultimate-rpg/


I mean, hell, he even got the original UO team back together lol

 

So you DIDN'T read what RG considers an "Ultimate RPG" that he states this game is going to be?

 

Um... what? I just said I did... He said explicitly he wants UO without alienating all the new players (by separating their experience out through selective multiplayer).

What are you talking about?

 

This is the link I'm talking about, the one that RG references in the Kickstarter and on the Shroud FAQ page.

https://www.portalarium.com/index.php/products/ultimate-rpg?id=93

 

Yes... and after he wrote that he has explicitly stated he wants it to be UO2 (but more new player friendly). He talked about on several news outlets and websites... (thats what my two links were about). He just never got the license but that doesn't mean he stopped making the game.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about lol.

Anyway... um... yeah. Lets grab a beer!

 

You never played the original edition. You head towards the dungeon, roll wandering monsters, you see a dragon, his reaction is [roll] hostile attacks immediately. I'll just start passing these character sheets around.

But @Sir_Tim - the problem with being a bandit who's going to attack people who won't/can't/shouldn't PvP is that in addition to not making their game better, you're really just attacking people you know you can wipe out. The battle you picked was over before the other person knew it was started. The reward is you get all their stuff, and they're not going to be able to get it back. The risk is non existent. Worse case scenario, which is an unlikely one, you loose some loot you didn't care that much about and re spawn. From a play balance view, this isn't a good situation.

 

Conversely, does that mean so much effort should even be put into balancing SotA's pvp mechanisms to as near-perfect as they can get it, in a sort of roundtable patch-of-the-month way like WoW, when we know it'll never be perfect and more people will just play LoL and DOTA anyway?

(just being devil's A)

 

WoW has balance problems because their PvE has progression in it. (increasing level, skills, gear) This is the root of all imbalance. Without progression, balance problem get ironed out quickly. Guildwars2 mostly got this right but made a few fumbles.

I think people playing these games would like an RPG element, if things were balanced.
I think there's a large market for games with a strategic component to combat but this really hasn't existed since DAoC / Lineage2. (Well, it does exist in EvE, but that's pretty different.) People flood to new games promising castles sieges (Warhammer, Aion, GW2) but then leave because while the sieges are fun, there really isn't much value to having the objective over time.

 

It doesn't have be to some kind of expected 'every month' kinda thing, but if something gets implemented in combat and a majority of players and the devs can agree that something is imbalanced and needs tweaking to give other strategies a chance to be successful, then yeah, change something like that in a patch. Especially after the start of each milestone period:
Beta starting, Mid Beta, Pre-Launch, Probably a quick one after launch, After a few months of pvp evaluation, tweaking new concepts introduced after a new episode launches, remaking old concepts from previous episodes if they're not scaling into later episodes; We're talking about a persistent online world here, so I think patching will be common practice for even just small visual changes.

Obviously some in-game event assets will be needed for any kind of special online event the team puts together as well.
Nerfs and Buffs are so common nowadays, I'd be surprised if the team ever said they were committing to never patching combat.

 

Forgive me I didn't read every post here. I do believe balance is important to the success of a game. It can also be the death of it when endlessly chasing balance. Sometimes you just have to leave well enough alone. I think (this is my opinion so take with a grain of salt) if you can make a game where the skill of the player is the deciding factor, not the "class" we play then it is a fair system. A thief shouldn't heal like a healer, a warrior should be able to take more of a beating then a mage, none should be a sure win vs. the other though. That is the balance I want. Many devs make endless adjustments to "classes" based on the rants of the most vocal players. To me this isn't the way to design a game.

Make a system where no one has the clear advantage. A system where your class does what it is supposed to do well, not everything everyone else can do. I always felt UO did this well. Sure there were "classes" that performed better in PvP, but that was never a sure thing. Sometimes you'd be out played by a simple shepherd and be OooOoOoo'ing all the way to a healer. The claim of "balance" is an unobtainable claim. Soon or later someone will figure out a OP class, combo, skill set and many will flock to it. Just create a game where your class is prepared to over come the challenges of the game itself.. Leaving the way it is played to the player.

Balancing around PvP / PvE / Classes is a never ending cycle. Again these are just my ramblings and whether you agree or not, I felt it needs to be stated. I am less concerned with SotA falling down this rabbit hole then any other game tho... must be my faith in the team and community we have here.

Oh yeah the most important thing to me is the community. If we fall prey to the all or nothing attitude of most other online games, SotA too will become like every other game community filled with immature rantings and hissy fits. Lets hope we can avoid that most of all. Just because we don't get exactly what we want doesn't justify acting like a punk. This is my biggest concern not the design, not the balance but the community. We need to remain open and willing to discuss every aspect of the game.

 

PvP should not be balanced passed anything beyond skill. Players with more skill, ingenuity, friends etc will win. If you do not want to partake, then do not.

However, to all naysayers, remember that every UO PK/PvPer was at one point a newb and got ganked/killed/robbed/PKd etc etc. It is OK, you move on, learn, and come back to take part. There is way way way more strife and PvP among PKs and PvPers than there is them ganking newbs. Newbs get ganked, because they are new and suck (either due to skill, or to character advancement). They don't belong in conventional PvP to begin with. If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Besides, RG made a point to say they are building a system where PvPers can't PK newbs (good.)

 

I'm looking forward to playing this game, and roleplaying. I never played UO, though I watched the development of the game closely, and wanted to.

I think starting SotA with a common profession, like tailor, tinker, carpenter, shepherd, farmer, bard, fisherman, ranger, scholar, druid, cook, city guard, etc. would be fantastic! Showcasing the crafting side of the game first to get new players comfortable as characters in the world with the interface then introducing the opportunities for adventure and combat as the story unfolds, might be an excellent way to get new gamers addicted to the gameplay we all know and love.

 

I'm with ya! Started gaming in 1978, yeah I'm old. But really laugh at some folks. Had a "discussion" at work with some "gamers". By their definition of RP playing pacman after dropping a quarter is role playing. People don't seem to understand role playing is more then just a justification for acting badly.

 

Hey look, somebody who apparently never played online RPG's before WoW was created has absolutely no perspective on what gaming was like before WoW watered down the genre into easily digestible cookie cutter format.

I'm not trying to be a ****, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about my friend. If you've never played a skill based game that allows customized character design, I dont see how you can claim things like "its done for balance" when that simply isnt true at all.

Its done so people dont have to think or plan their characters. They're just following the carrot dangled in front of them. Monkey see, monkey do.

Rock Paper Scissors is a horrible way of balancing a game, IMHO.

 

Okay, I had to make an account to ask a question that may or may not have been answered in the past..

There are obviously people who are:
A.) FOR pk/perm pvp/full loot
B.) AGAINST PK/perm pvp/full loot
C.) FOR consensual pvp, but AGAINST pk's/full loot
Or D.) one of many different combinations of the above..

One thing that seems relative or constant between everyone and even LB is REALISM and IMMERSION. Now, to speed up my point because my two year old has other ideas of what I should be doing on my phone, shouldn't realism and immersion INCLUDE permenant pvp/pk's/full loot?

In the suggested world and possible time frame that these games place in, what exactly would stop Toby from murdering Oscar on his way between Trinsic and Britannia?.. And on top of that, what supreme force would keep Toby from being able to take Oscar's belongings once he's cold and dead?

Nothing.. (If there is, I'm all ears. Like I said, this is just a situation I've never really had set straight for me.)

ALSO, what about thieves? I remember having a GM thief/pickpocket in UO.. Stealing numerous valuable items while standing at Brit bank or breaking into people's houses and doing the same.. What's wrong with that?

Basically, what's wrong with role playing a murderer or a thief, just like you would RP a tailor or a fisherman or even a bard?
For every pk there will be a bounty hunter (probably 3 for every pk) just like for every warrior there will be a smith to make armor.

I understand that this cannot be 97-99 UO, but with the way everyone will be separated I think anything is possible.