Stop pushing SotA in the wrong direction!

A bowler can put as much spin on the ball as they can but the ball is still going to go down the same lane.

We have not changed the plan at all, only added a little spin here and there. The original plan is still intact.

 

how do you know? You are claiming to know that he doesn't know what starr is thinking right? You would have to know what Drocis is thinking to know that right? If you can claim to know what Drocis is thinking, then it is just as easy to say Drocis knows what Starr is thinking. It may even be easier because you don't even know who Drocis is except that he has an account in this forum.

I'm not trying to start anything, but I'm pointing this out. Also I think Drocis made a good point when he quoted Starr even if it wasn't the context in which Starr was responding to. The thing is this game hasn't strayed at all. It really has just matured within the scope of the original concept. Really I cannot think of anything vital that has veered off from the original concept, BUT there have been different interpretations of how that concept should manifest.


So really the deal here is how the concept is materializing. If you look at the original Kickstarter videos this game has clearly manifested that concept and hasn't really changed direction. Heck even the combat system was talked about in Kickstarter (the idea not the mechanics). Subtitles have changed but not the true core concept.

People have been advocating for no dual scale map, no instancing... that hasn't changed though.

 

Gandalf is actually saying there that a wizard has greater concerns than the pettiness of judgment by time of arrival. Wizards don't BS--they get to things when they get to them. In other words, it's not the place of non-wizards to criticize the time management skills of wizards. I don't believe that quotation has anything to do with how hard magic is for the Istari.

Spoiler

Remember, "wizards" in Lord of the Rings are not human. They are creatures sent to Middle Earth from another world to defend the people of Middle Earth from Sauron (who is himself an ancient spirit, the most powerful of his kind). The Istari are powerful, but they are creatures of good. They are forbidden by their masters from attempting to defeat Sauron. Sarumon is defeated when he defies that rule, falling slave to his ambition and becoming corrupted by the same powers that corrupted Sauron. Anyway, the Istari are much more concerned with problems of much grander significance than the general affairs of hobbits. Gandalf's comment here is a reflection of that relationship, but that is all. In Middle Earth, magic is a matter of being--not generally of difficulty or complexity, except in the sense that possessors/users of magic tend to grow more powerful with age.

 

No, his comment is a joke between himself and Frodo.

But if we look behind the joke the meaning is clear. Wizards (human or not) don't just walk out of the house without knowing where they're going. They have purpose and do things after giving it thought. The magic system we have doesn't require thought. That's what my point was.[/quote]

 

I agree. Magic should not be like shooting guns. Spells should be prepared and then used with thought and tactics.

 

It is kind of a joke, but I disagree with you on the meaning. Gandalf is handily shaking off the accusation that he is late. That's really all. Gandalf does a lot of things without really thinking them through too much, as do the other Istari. And anyway, even if you stick with your interpretation, it speaks more to the personal quality of wisdom than it does to the use of magic. Gandalf's magic is just a fact of his being. It doesn't require pomp or circumstance.

 

Well, wait a minute. If there ever was an Ultima Online 2 it may have similarities to UO, but there would be a whole lot of changes and new concepts. Many people are asking for worse than UO2. Let's say Lord British had the rights to the Ultima name. He could call this very game Ultima Online 2 - The Shroud of the Avatar, without adding the 17 year old features.

So people are asking for WORSE than UO2. They want to clone UO and repackage it. Some people are actually asking for cloning 17 year old features and throwing them into a game that will be released in 2015. We all have probably fallen into that during this process though (I'm thinking of some comments I've made that were unimaginative and UO style thinking). Nevertheless, some people are dead set on not asking for UO2 they are asking for Born-Again UO (BAUO).

And others want worse. They want BAUO-WoW.

Shroud of the Avatar will not be using 17 year old technology it won't be Born Again UO, or Born Again UO + WoW. Like that? BAUO-WoW? nevermind. Either way UO2 would still be better than BAUO.

 

You can't start a fire without a spark.

If you're going to criticize someone's rhetoric, though, try doing it in a more objective way. You lose rapport with your audience when you appear offended by what is essentially just another person's style. It's fair to call him out on being redundant and using ineffective language, but instead of just telling him he's doing it wrong, try to help him do better. Do it this way and you'll get rainbows instead of fires.

 

Right, I see what you mean. I have twisted the original meaning for the purpose of my argument. I'm comfortable with that, as I believe most people understand that the two things don't invalidate one or the other. I also suppose that the Istari were more than just 5 wizards, they had their own planet, and so if someone wanted to play Lord of the Rings Online they could play a Wizard! I just check and surprisingly it appears they can not. I wonder why that is? Surely magic is common place and everyone in the game is a hybrid! That's all I was trying to say, is that magic is not something that EVERYONE should be running around performing. Magic is special, and the thoughtfulness required to be a mage is required.

This actually makes me want to play Lord of the Rings Online more.

 

Did you forget the Rune Keeper - they don't use magic - they use words ... extrapolation = hyperbole in the land that is Lotro sadly ... ohh yeah they are also bringing in a "cleric" (although they are not calling it that) ... ahhhh and the lore master - I mean if it looks like magic and it hits like magic - maybe its magic

 

I agree if the concept is to create a solo RPG like Ultima then the overland map will work for a 40 hour storyline, but they are now running wild with MMO idea's so if they have decided its an MMO it needs to ditch the overland map and create an open world to explore, MMO's are built around the freedom to travel & explore a world with the Dungeons usually an open instance. Storyline and main quests dungeons are private instances.
SotA is just all instances 1m players could in reality all be in the same instance in SPO gathering and killing everything, how do you run an MMO economy on such a random factor.
True its not a real MMO more FPS map setup with about 50+ players visible max, so why create a Player town with over 100 plots when you can never see everyone who lives in it if you are all online, what's the point of running special events any visitors who will probably think they are in SPO if you don't match up to the towns friends list.
Like I said the world is running wild with idea's but the game seems to be lost in the rush.

 

@wagram

MMO's are already doing it ... its not unique to SoTA / primarily in major player hubs

 

Everything seems to be a HUB ( must be todays buzz word along with robust) nowadays, cramming everything into one little box, it may be cheaper for the Developers and better for investors.
I prefer my MMO's to be open world with a dungeon instanced, so it creates a great experience for the customer.
I thought SotA was to be the latest unique game changing concept creating a new dynamic world to explore.

 

All I'm saying is that they indeed are doing what an mmo already does - I don't think hub is a catch phrase it's just a descriptor for place where people congregate - at least that is how I use it

 

I would agree there in a sense. But that was already attempted with Star Wars Galaxies. When SWG launched, the Jedi class was restricted in a very meaningful way. All accounts were limited to one character, and each character had to meet a very specific set of unknown criteria (which some people suspect changed regularly) in order to unlock the Jedi slot. Because this set of criteria was in every case complex, it was extremely rare for anyone to meet it. Thus, Jedi were rare, as fits with the Star Wars universe. This was pretty interesting, in fact, but the intrigue produced by an exclusive, powerful character class was offset by how engaging everything else in the game was. Smuggling, crafting, bounty hunting--all of it was fun, especially when it came time to hunt a Jedi with a bounty on her head. When Jedi were killed, see, they stayed dead (though they could reroll a new Jedi character if they wanted). To top it all off, if a Jedi had reached a high enough level before dying, the player could choose to keep the character as a Force ghost. It was pretty neat.

But magic is such an integral part of the SotA world that I'm not sure we can pull off a system that imbalances magic so drastically. When you consider all the combat skills, it's not hard to see that many builds will need to use at least some magic. Magic skills make up a pretty good chunk of all skills overall, even. Because it's such a core, critical part of gameplay, magic has to be carefully balanced, and it's very hard to balance it if two requirements for magic as a practice are that it should be powerful and difficult to use. What's the tradeoff, and how do you reconcile the realities that the tradeoff can't be so bad that it persuades people to just not use magic and that the tradeoff can't be so "light" that people just use magic because it's the best thing there is?

That last question is very difficult to answer, and it's part of the reason I don't see this happening for a classless game. It's easier to do in class-based games because you can focus your balancing efforts on cookie cutter character builds, but in a game that is based on user selected sets of skills, penalties have to be modular and scalar such that they accurately restrict the use of magic in ways that justify its power. As you can probably tell from the fact that basically every game uses some combination of reagents and mana as limiters, this is hard to do in innovative ways.

This might be feasible if Portalarium is willing to track data like SWG did to track progress toward unlocking the Jedi class, now that they've opened up to the idea of multiple character slots. Have one or more "legendary" spell schools that are locked until a player seemingly randomly unlocks them, then allow the player to choose one to unlock when he or she meets the requirements. That skill school is then unlocked account-wide. But it should be the case that any character that has pointed invested in the first skill in that school subjects him- or herself to permadeath the next time the character dies. Permadeath would justify the skills being very powerful, I think.

 

I thought limited Jedi was the most compelling reason to play SWG. But the implementation of that system being linked to (the last I heard) grinding away at ALL the skills, seemed like a poor reason to "become a Jedi".

That said, magic doesn't have to be limited to 5 Istari or a small amount of Jedi for it be compelling. There are all kinds of ways you could make it less common just by giving people easier access and less "rules" to the combat skills. If your choices are like this for example:

1. You buy a sword and shield and you fight.
2. You gather or by specific reagents. You pre-cast your spells in the moon light giving them a specific effect. But oh wait your spells are being cast in the sun light making the effect change. But oh wait you used Reagents from the hills of Tormat making that an even more rare combination. How's it all work again? Well you'd have to be a really dedicated mage to know exactly. Or of course you might look it all up on a wiki site, but then you still have to produce the results yourself. That's certainly a better system than pick up a staff and shoot.

I could really go on and on, that's just off the top of my head. The point remains the same though, magic can be as accessible as the developers want it to be, even in a classless system, and even by making it challenging. The truth is, the way it is now really stinks.

 

Bro, you 'gon make me go create SotACaster?

 

Well at some point I thought a bit like u did, I also think the devs shouldnt listen to the comunity too much but Im sure they know that.
And seeing how great the comunity is and how honest the devs seem to be, Im faithful that this will be the first good mmo in years.

I dont like how there is no open world which althought is a huge factor, that brings me to the 2nd point I dont like wich are the graphics. They should have sticked to 2d with a huuuge open world where you can travel the oceans and maybe the sky
Small instances yuck! Travel over a mini map? groan thats the major point Im sad about and its already spoiling my game fun but my hope remain (except for the big map and the traveling)

P.s.: What I really do like thou, post somthing positive at least, are how the devs dont state wrong promises (at least thats what Im certain of) and I dont feel ripped off yet wich isnt the case with 99% of the games on the market for the past years.

good day all

 

It's a crowd funded game...

 

Why aren't there huge cities and lots of maps and a gazillion quests already!!!!!

Oh WAIT its only P R E - A L P H A stage of game... hasn't even hit B E T A yet...

"The magic system is just so boring and simple" "Why isn't magic as complex as cooking"

THIS is WHY most games select Alpha and Beta testers so they have as few whiny little brats to listen to while they develop their game.

Why would you ask mom and dad "are we there yet" when you haven't even left the house and got in the car yet?