Stop pushing SotA in the wrong direction!

I am very concerned as of late about the direction SotA is developing. And I fear that it is the fault of our community.
When SotA was announced, the concept sounded unique and interesting. A selective multiplayer RPG with the option to experience a story offline and alone as well as online with friends and strangers AND a sandbox in which we could do what we want. An evolution of the RPG genre, something new that didn't forget all the great things of the genre.
Unfortunately some of you want this game to be something different: Ultima Online 2. And I fear that you are pushing the game into the wrong direction. SotA as per the Kickstarter concept was not meant to be UO2. It was meant to be something unique and different.
But now we have a situation in which obviously UO fans want to change the fundamental elements of the game, those elements that would make SotA unique.

Some of you want non-consensual PvP just like it was in UO whereas this was never the plan with SotA. On the Kickstarter page it even says: "Meaningful PVP that also minimizes griefing: An incentive-driven system will draw players into the challenge and intrigue of the PVP experience, whether they become the hunter or the hunted!" This implies that PvP was meant to be consensual from the very beginning. But still some of you wanted to push it in a different direction than was intended.

The overland map was planned from the very beginning and was at the heart of the gaming experience and it would work so well with the original concept of the game - a return to the old days of Ultima. Yet some of you want to have a travelling system like in any other MMORPG, an open world. But SotA was not meant to be a typical MMORPG, it is a selective multiplayer online RPG! And it is now pushed into another direction!

The same with the combat system. Some of you say that it is not MMO-like. Heck yes! As SotA was not meant to be an MMO it is a selective multiplayer online RPG!

I really fear that right now SotA is being pushed away from this unique and interesting concept RG and his team had in the beginning. It is being forced into the role of a typical MMORPG, a role it was not meant to play. Some of you are stripping the uniqueness from the game and want it to be something we already had: UO.

I also fear that in the end we may get neither the original and unique concept nor Ultima Online 2. As some of the fundamental game mechanics simply don't allow for the game to become UO 2. I fear that if this pushing the game into the wrong direction won't stop, then we might end up with a game that is neither something unique nor something that will please us.

Don't get me wrong. We alle have ideas and we all imagine how this game would/should be like. And of course you should all give feedback and post ideas. But I think we reached a point at which all of those ideas that go against the original vision of SotA are so strong that the whole concept of the game is "in danger".

 

Everyone is entitled to have opinions and discuss what they perceive as flaws.

Regards,

 

Absolutely! I encourage everyone to post their opionions. I myself do so, too. And of course some ideas can be for the better of the game, but I also think that we should keep the original vision of the game in mind and not try to destroy it.

 

I think you can rest assured the game will be what you hope.

Regards,

 

Something I noticed Starr posted in the Steam comments yesterday...

Ever since the kickstarter days I can still see their vision of a hybrid RPG with MMO like persistence in what they are doing now. Games like Destiny, Borderlands etc have all explored this direction and it is becoming increasingly common for games to be a selectively shared experience with as many or as few people as you want. The type of gameplay we see will naturally grow from that core concept and it will be very hard to stray from it if they keep that focus.

 

I hope we get some better examples soon (hopefully with Shroud of the Avatar), since Destiny and Borderlands are games I'd never play for their solo player experience (I like Borderlands, especially because of the humor, but only in Multiplayer, and even then only for some time, since it's extremely repetitive and doing the same things over and over and over again gets boring very fast; and for Destiny, well:

)

To the OT: Even when I agree with some of your concerns, you should never order people to "STOP..." expressing their wishes, concerns and opinions. I believe that the creators know, what they are doing. And even when someone tries to put pressure on the developers, to go in a direction you don't like, you are free to react and provide reasonable counter arguments.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

"no plan survives contact with the enemy," ... or for that matter with your friends or your target market. The idea that a great artist just creates art that instantly justifies itself is simply not true; you have to practice, practice, practice and then re-write, re-design etc. Even someone like Terry Pratchet re-wrote major plot points of his books depending on how well those ending tested; Gaspode the Wonder Dog for instance originally had a different fate at the end of Moving Pictures which was changed based upon focus testing. And then there are the editors and proof readers behind him and...

This is the real worry about Kickstarter and buying Alpha-Access in fact; that the consumer now is so disconnected from the reality of the production process of anything they buy, they don't understand that even with the best will in the world, the greatest coding talent possible, and an iron commitment to ignoring any diversionary desires put their way at all, there's no guarantee the project will even be completed, let alone anything like the original hopes. And why would it? I can imagine how amazing it would be for someone else to love me as much as I love them, but it doesn't mean they ever could or would. She could also get run over by a bus tomorrow. Likewise saying the card deck combat is awesome is a hope, it's not a proof of concept; it may work out to be incredibly fresh and playable, but a good designer, once it proves to be working out to be the opposite and seems impossible to make so, would go back and scrap it.

The test of the Overworld map for instance will come once it's linked into events on it; Will we like it? Let's hope so! But if it proves to feel wrong I expect it will be modified or even abandoned, and if you aren't ready for that you shouldn't kickstart anything. You're supporting aspirations but you're not buying reality.

Still, I do agree quite strongly with the criticism of those trying to make it Ultima Online 2; because it's also making the same mistake. UO isn't what UO started out trying to be either, and it's only surviving because of radically different audience responses to the hotch-potch of new and trial ideas it consists of now. There never was a "true" UO, only a moving wave-form which has a peak at different points for different people. And if you go by subscriptions, that peak for most was around 2003, 5 years after the game launched, and when it was a completely different playstyle to what the Devs then hoped and assumed it would be.

 

DarkStarr answered this same concern yesterday on the Steam forums.

I would also like to add that regardless of the single player experience, the multiplayer experience and combat are equally important to the success and original vision of this game.

I also have misgivings about the direction of the game from a ROLEPLAYING standpoint, and I think the combat system and the magic system are a perfect example of that. Where the game seems to excel from a roleplaying design standpoint is surprisingly the cooking system. I wish combat and magic were as sophisticated as cooking.

 

Yes, and I never bothered playing the first Borderlands because of that. However, the stronger focus on a narrative in Borderlands 2 and more detail in the world's lore made it much more playable.
This is also evident in Destiny. Their first attempt is all about gameplay (very repetitive and bland, but VERY polished) and if they just inject some more variety and lore I think it will have the same success.

 

Regarding Super Halo Online (aka: Destiny). I'm sure it's a wonderful game. I'm sure that over time it will get even better. But I'm reminded of a quote from ex-Shadowbane developer, Wolfpack Studios "I don't play games to bake bread, I play to crush."

Well I don't play games games to "crush", that's a very one dimensional reason to do things. I don't play just to roleplay either, I could go down to a local gaming shop and get that fix. I prefer a combination of the two with the emphasis being on roleplaying. To accomplish this, the game has to have a soul, and too few do.

A soul isn't created by shooting everything on the screen (Planetside) or "interacting" with the world like it's a virtual toilet (Watch Dogs), Nor is a soul created by shuttering yourself in the closet of a dimly lit Sid Meir simulation. To accurately find the balance required to have a deeper experience in gaming, I believe you need other people (multiplayer) but you also need rules and competition (meaningful roleplaying tools).

No single element like "lore" can create an environment suitable for roleplaying. Many games have lore.

No single system can do it either. They must all work within the same integrated framework. Crafting must feed Combat which must support Housing that balances out Crafting, etc.. (this is just a conceptual example to show that core systems should work as one)

I'm here because I believe that soul is being formed in SOTA. As I said above, I have some concerns of my own. If combat and magic do not move from their current spot, then those systems will be the weak link of roleplaying.

 

There was another thread that needed to see this quote from the original Kickstarter Campaign. But it was so good I thought I should repost it here too:

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree with darkstar on that. I think you have to develop both as you go a long...have some sort of plan as to how one will work with the other. If all you are doing is tacking on a singleplayer quest line, then that really isn't making a singleplayer experience.


I totally agree with the OP...I cringe at all the posts that start with I hope that it will be like UO in...or UO was like this so this should be like this....

 

I don't think Starr was implying that. Of all people, he would be the one to know that you simply cannot do that.

 

There is a lot to it yes. I think for this reason some feel like it's going to be a "stepchild".

 

Exactly, Richard has detailed out a very sophisticated nutrition system, with recipes for cooking, brewing, alchemy, and more that affect how your character interacts with the world via what they consume. Very nice.

On the other hand, combat is very MMO-like, even with the randomized deck system. I had hoped to have more interaction with the environment, and having skills used freeform instead of just adding to a quicklanuch bar. I'd prefer the tactical combat of U5 and U6, or in Divinity: OS, although obviously real-time instead of turn-based.

Some of that is also that the immersiveness is not there yet, especially with magic. I'll wait until reagent gathering, words of power, interaction with armor, etc are in, but so far I'm just not sold on how magic works yet. For example, there are 91 spells in SotA (40 elemental, 40 primal, and 11 Chaos), and there were only 74 spells in Ultima 7; however, due to how they are divided and some underwhelming choices, it feels like there are fewer spell choices than in the older game. In comparison, UO currently has over 110 spells (not including Chivalry).

 

Dude, I'm glad it's not just me!

Here's the BIG thing I don't get about magic. Why is there no strategy involved in it?

Gandalf: "A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."

That's the mentality of magic that is missing. You don't really plan ahead in this system, you just show up and start shooting with your six shooter. Pow Pow! What the magic system needs is far less "Pow Pow" and far more arriving precisely when he means to. Magic is currently just a bunch of buttons, it needs to be something that requires some thought and study to perform (NOT just to perform well, but just to perform AT ALL).

 

Yes, exactly. If you suspect danger, you should stop and cast some preemptive spells, just like a warrior would ready their sword and shield. Playing a mage in Ultima meant judicious use of Protect All, Energy Field, and Invisibility to change the battlefield before a monster even appears. There is a little of that (Strength of Earth, Ring of Fire, etc), but no lasting effects, and they currently can only be cast after you are engaged.

 

At the moment, most of the skills and spells are concentrated on the combat itself. I'd love to see some out of combat spells and skills again (and a third skill tree aside of combat and crafting for out of combat stuff). Not only mages might want to prepare for combat, but rogue characters, too. And I'm missing spells and skills, that have nothing to do with combat at all, to add more diversity and prevent the game from becoming monotonous (like climbing, stealing, hide, sneak, rune reading, Telekinesis spells, transformation spells, seduction spells and skills, etc. etc.).

 

The Sandbox Killed Batman

May seem off topic but its relevant

 

I can't deny your concerns. I have no proof Port Team are addressing internally Single Player features while they develop the core mechanics, which are being tested from an MMO point of view because as others (DarkStarr included) stated, it's the order of schedule. The only thing i can do is believing they are doing it, because they said they will. Even if your concerns had real and undeniable roots, i feel expressing them as a warning is not constructive at all. This warning could, at best, make players talk about what they don't like of SotA (which will generate feedback, but it could get lost without an specific topic of discussion... i'm glad this is the situation right now, cheers for the community!) or at worst, bringing in the people you fear most; the ones who claims this game is best by his own viewpoint, with no will for commitment at all.

You put all the blame into the community (or at least, part of it) for something that hasn't happened yet; from my point of view that's unfair to the community and the devs. People "pushing SotA in the wrong direction" are only expressing their concerns, same way as you do, they're not pushing anything. Developers are the ultimate arbitrators, and i expect them to have good criteria, considering good suggestions while keeping what they promised. I think it will be more constructive and a better way of expressing your concerns if you keep defending your posture in related posts, rather than throwing a general warning.

If i remember well (sometimes i don't, so please correct me if i'm mistaken) your concerns were combat and mostly magic being a bit plain, with no depth beyond some points in a few skill trees. You have a point indeed, that's why i'd love to see the plain system work, so they could work into making it a bit more interesting; i expect high tier skills to be meaningful and not easily attainable, and i'd like to see mechanics that rewards players for being dedicated to a particular skill.

That being said, i'll put my efforts and posts in making it plainless from the point of view of the mechanic itself (Drocis, you said it many times, and i completely agree with you; this game needs active counters!). I think the roleplay aspect could be adressed when we have a solid foundation. I'm looking forward to actually participate in a release (just a couple of days left! wheee! ) so i'd gain actual testing experience to back up my opinion. Then i'll shape some ideas i have and post them. Get ready to struggle against my (even bigger) walls of text!