SofA Must capture what the people want inorder to be successful

I want Ultima back too.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

I'll agree with all of that, although the last is subjective, I'll still agree.

Well, here's the thing. One segment's "freedom" (open-PvP) forced the other segment (PvE) to be less free in the ability to enjoy the type of game they wanted to play. Using the old and tired "risk vs reward" argument is a joke as well considering that PKs (as opposed to PvP players who worked within guild or Order/Chaos of Factions war systems) were never about risk and only about reward. The PK was never there for a fair fight, but to catch the PvE player off guard and hopefully low on health while fighting a stronger monster so that they could kill them with the least effort possible for the rewards of what the PvE player had acquired (little risk -> great reward). Since UO was/is subscription based, this caused a LOT of people to quit the game in disgust. Quitting in this case cost the game revenue. Other titles learned this issue and adapted accordingly. It's really no surprise that future efforts to replicate "old UO" have been limited to "free shards", or failures in the (western) marketplace (Shadowbane, Darkfall).

The problem is that the PLAYERS have proven that it's NECESSARY to monitor them like grade schoolers. G.I.F.T. is a real thing and it comes out most in online games. Even if you're not dealing with people acting worse than 5 year olds, you're still dealing with a generation of video gamers (going back to NES days) who have been conditioned to believe that cheating in a game is perfectly acceptible (cheat codes, Gamesharks, etc).

SotA is going to let the PLAYERS dictate what type of experience they want to have. If you want a game full of PvPers and PKs, you'll probably have a way to have it... however that will be the people you'll see. You will NOT be seeing the people who do NOT want that type of experience and instead want to play WITH friends... not AGAINST strangers.

Choice is good.

 

In many ways, UO was always intended to be a simulator. They had originally planned on a functional ecology, where wolves would eat rabbits, bears would eat deer, and so forth. That idea had to be scrapped when players inflicted mass extinctions on the environment.

Because UO was not a resounding success for all players. Without filters to limit the things about UO that were pathological, you limit your market, and SotA is nothing if not trying to appeal to every market that exists EXCEPT the non-consensual PvP market.

Richard Garriott would be the first to tell you that one of the worst things about UO was the ultimate freedom. It's a two edged sword.

I think you will be able to get that exact same environment if there is an Open PvP option. I'm hoping such an environment would be very much like UO Siege Perilous, where outside of towns, anything goes. Everyone in that mode will have the freedom to do what they want, to include being thieves and murderers. What does it matter if others are playing on OPO PvE? They would no more visible to me than another player on a different shard in UO.

If S0tA is filtered, everyone in their particular niche is happy, and the game sells far more copies than they would otherwise. Would you have Portalarium risk failure for your desired game design? You can have your desired game design, and so can everyone else as long as you don't wish for nonconsentual PvP. If the game sells hundreds of thousands of copies, or even millions as I hope, there will be PLENTY of action to please everyone.

Portalarium as gone this route because they learned the hard lessons of UO all too well.

Based on some of the suggestions I've seen, some players need to be treated like grade schoolers.

 

Strange, the problem with UO to me was that it wasn't Ultima, sure it shared the names of places etc but it did not feel like ultima at all. So to me, it was a failure.

 

I really wish I knew what you guys were talking about when you mention UO vs.Ultima. I've played neither. I can kind of relate since Phantasy Star Online is nothing like Phantasy Star 1-4. They are set in the same universe but it probably wasn't as disappointing because each version of the game was at different time periods (star systems and planets were called about the same thing and that was pretty much it.) Just so you know: Phantasy Star Universe made me want to forget about the whole franchise. I hope that SoTA doesn't make you guys feel that way about the Ultima products.

 

I'm with you in that I'd like games to be more like UO in being open-ended, allowing freedoms, and not hand-holding the player... but the way you're talking -- and the way a lot of people talk -- you'd think there were no problems in UO at all, and it was the most perfect game that could ever be created. UO had plenty of flaws, too.

 

An understandable sentiment but not undifferent to what Star Wars, Final Fantasy, even Ultima IX did to themselves. PS1-4 are still there, and they're still awesome single player RPGs. All the "originals" will always be there.

I am hoping that what people are expecting is not a nostalgia rush that lasts them five years; instead something reminiscent yet altogether new.

 

Newbie slaying is an easy fix. And I couldn't disagree more with you on the issue of u.o free shards dying because the magic is gone. I would say that's more because the craters don't stay enough involved with the shard. The game has to evolve or it will die. Also I believe the ultima series as trying to create as real of situations as it can. The feeling of randomness and letting the dice fall where they may is the true magic of the game. Random rewards on monsters bring more pvmers. Pvmers bring pks. Pks bring anti pks and so the cycle continues.

 

This is exactly right. It meets all our needs. I say that SotA is right on track for it to become my all time favorite game. Just keep going the direction it's going.

The good thing is they are indeed listening to us. I've seen them respond to the community so many times already. They are making the game we want to play. You can't satisfy everybody, and nobody will be perfectly satisfied on every issue.

The only concern I have is the deck combat system, and that is only a minor concern for me now because it is so clear that they are listening to the feedback. I'm certain it will be worked out and the end product will be enjoyable. So if anybody is concerned that they are not listening, relax.

 

Like several others here, I was there for the beginning of UO. I was a huge Ultima fan and I was really excited about playing an Ultima game with hundreds of other people. Just immersing myself in Britannia and treating it like a real world was beyond exciting to me. It was a great social experiment... and it definitely succeeded to a point.

But I think the success... the glory days of UO, if you will... was more about the timing than the system design. The MMO playerbase was brand new... unsegregated because there weren't other MMOs out there that catered to certain playstyles. I really don't think a "new UO" would immediately succeed in drawing anything more than a niche audience... it would be nothing like the old days of UO because many people simply want to play the games that cater to them and segregate them from the playstyles they don't like.

SotA's approach is interesting because it has the potential to cater to a lot of different playstyles and overlap them in a more controlled manner. It may feel more "gamey" than UO, but as long as the immersion is there for the immersion gamers, the crafting is there for the crafters, the adventuring is there for the adventurers and the PVP is there for the PVPers, etc, it just might be the closest thing to an online game design that supports all playstyles since... UO?

I'm excited about that.