SPO and SP Offline

Well, they did tell us--just not that. The stated reason they brought PvP in early is so they can better refine combat overall.

Of course it's possible the decision had something to do with all the bellyaching over PvP. But hey, the given reason does make sense.

 

And what does that have to do with posts on the forums. They could have very easily been working on this from the beginning. Once it was to the point it was presentable they put it in.

Does not mean forums posts had anything to do with it.

Over reading things into everything only leads to misinformation.

 

Eh? DarkStarr explained it quite thoroughly in the R7 Impressions + R8 Revised thread. Maybe they were working on it from the beginning, but I don't see any reason to expect DarkStarr just plain lied about it...

 

You need to compartimentalize your priority checklist Ristra, that isn't a subject to polemic.

We're just saying very clearly that we were told to expect something unique, which the card system (done more precisely and much more intgrated in the game than just combat) is a good proposition.

In essence it makes it feel interesting, but the fact it was rushed out the doors make us SPO backers a bit worried. Thus we deserve a little bit of reassuring, just as the pvp folks had.

It's not blown out of proportions, it is what it is.

 

I don't have an issue the work the dev's are doing - PvP - is an integral part of this project : so is the MMOeeee aspects (sharing your exploits/adventures with friends, having a fulfill your inner merchant or draconian landlord inhibitions)

But I think we have a simple request; can't we all just get along (opps wrong speech) ... I mean

(Inquiry) - How robust will the companion system be and how will it be integrated into the "massive online" aspect of the game? - what tech factors, if any, influenced your decision?

 

I am not seeing anything about the PvP plan changing due to an outcry on the forums. Or are you misinterpreting my point?

 

I think we're both misinterpreting each other's and we actually are making the same point. My first post was about how the team did explain why they launched PvP early but that the reason wasn't because there was an outcry for it.

 

I know I heard someone say something about it (I think Richard) in an interview. Interviews are, of course, the least official forms of communication.

AND he didn't say: "Oh there was such an outcry in the forum about PvP, we pushed it up." I think Portalarium has more sense than that. More discretion. He did say something along the lines of: "Our forum members brought up a good point. They said opening PvP is the best way to balance combat and I agree." That is an extreme paraphrase. I heard it once, months ago.

Not really much help, but there it is.

 

I remember that also, now that you mention it.

This is kind of a silly thing to argue, though. (It's especially silly when you consider that there isn't actually a disagreement. ) I don't think anyone would outright deny that Portalarium reads and sometimes responds to posts on these forums. Whether or not they did for this one specific case isn't really a game changer, I don't think.

 

No they don't do more discretion Docdoom... they're humans and I know when they talk about cringing when reading the forum my ugly old face pops up in their mind.

Beleive me often when I re-read myself I'm like ok, wtf why are you so incisive, so condescending. Then I realise its a part of me that wants TRUTH, the part of me that was TRAINED by Ultima and lord british games.

Then I feel a lil less guilty. And when I see people asking perfectly sane and well tought inquiries and other people jumping in to justify the devs, it makes me feel ill. They don't need your justifying, like any human they will take and leave some of it, and try their best to fullfill everyone's concern.

I'm not freaking out because we have a wall in front of us and my concerns are not being adressed (in fact ALL my immediate concerns about the payment system and UI were almost immediately fixed) I'm freaking out because the team is using soft lies to try not to offend some please pardon the pun "young minds".

Given the same card combat system , and no push to "balance it for pvp" I bet you that we would have ended up with a more tought out, better system.

Don't tell me combat is central to the game, it isn't, no ultima game was based uniquely on combat, in fact it was mostly secondary and a way to "lenghten" the game so to speak. I'll leave it at that...

 

This isn't Ultima. Garriott wants for this game to remind its players of the Ultima series, which presumably means a great story. But with complex companions on hold for Ep. 1, I'm thinking it might be a long while until we see that great story really start to unfold. (It was some months ago we were told, subtly, that companion personalities would not be making it into Ep. 1.)

But yeah, I would like to hear more about the single player game. Seems legit, since one of the core features of this game is the ability to play it either solo or online.

 

Ah Ha, now I see.

Yes, it's a "moo" point. But my reasoning for the post was a specific person has an extreme habit of attempting to turn observation into fact. Just ask about EA firing volunteers or a quick forums search.

Nothing to see, carry on.

Sooooooooo, how about save states vs persistent worlds. Personally, I can't stand saving games. Anyone ever play 2 worlds? Saving is an option, but not needed, you respawn and your actions are left in game.

 

There's nothing wrong with having both for single player. I'd like to see an auto save system that also supports the ability to quick save and manually save. Then each player could experience the game either or both ways.

 

yah saving state is usually only good for turn based games... or those where an error can mean you're game over

To think I'm finished paying my pledge and the game was supposed to release next month...

 

I don't mind it being optional, but I really want a save feature. That way if you make some mistake that you would never make in real life (click on the wrong thing and steal it, sell everything you own for 20 gold, because it was all in your back pack , etc), you can just load.

 

In single player offline a save state wouldn't be a problem, heck if it's not in someone will likely make a mod for it.

In SPO, I can't see how it would fit. I can see how it could be forced in but I don't think it's needed. Persistent world, with a dynamic story that is constantly altering the layout of the world, save states are not going to be fitting.

 

If th

If they provide means for amends wouldn't that be more fitting to a game where your actions have meaning?

 

But MMORPGs are not games where the actions have meaning. If you can kill the evil dragon over and over again and the princess gets abducted over and over again then everything you do is meaningless.

 

They can't provide means for amends to every stupid thing you can accidentally do in a game. I get your point, but I PREFER save/load. I don't find it something that interferes with the experience, rather something that enhances it.

 

THANK YOU LORD_DARKMOON!​

​

BUT OUR PRINCESS IS IN​

ANOTHER CASTLE!​