The more I read about this game. The more i go OH OH..8(

Considering the customized housing in UO was based off an early Sims-engine that Electronic Arts imported in from elsewhere within their empire, I rather think UO did it second... Unless you mean generic overworld housing?

Don't enter "MMOs with non-instanced housing" as a google search then. There's at least one franchise, not just with AAA games in it's history, but culturally has had decades of dominance across every possible media, that went the same route...

Ultima was on of the earliest MMOs out of the box so it definitely did trailblaze the way for many features. But how could you possibly not be aware Star Wars had real world housing? Some of you don't even seem to know where Ultima currently is either; there are complaints about there being no plot, yet no awareness shown of the Event Manager program in UO where you can influence it? Atlantic currently has Chaos Guards occupying cities because some of the players declared their independence from the realm...

But the above quote is exactly these debates are impossible again; mmjarec just declares no game makes him personally feel as early Ultima did, and with that not just the written history of everyone else's past is gone, current reality is ignored, but even future development is expected to match what is in all practical terms absolutely impossible to design for... because guys, you're talking about things that never were real in the first place. I can claim that the first girl I ever fell for secretly loved me, despite hitting e with chairs every time I went near her, because oh I loved her so, so much, my love was so pure how could it be wrong... but er, no. No she didn't, no she couldn't. And I grew up, developed, got a wider perspective and actually got to be in love and do all those fun things love leads too, despite the odd soft spot still held for those times since (and not just the places she softened me up with furniture.) You guys sound locked in a perpetual adolescence I'm afraid.

Although I'm also not so blind as to think an awful lot of the funding here comes from people being nostalgic about their time with Ultima, I even wrote a piece declaring some of my support personally was from that

 

Well for the OP best of luck to you. We really don't know what we don't know at this point. This is my very first kickstarter, and it is, and has been an interesting game to play. With a sometimes noisy mind I trudge forward on this journey , yes as I do in life, not knowing what will be around the next corner. No corner has got the best of me yet tho lol. I am here to watch this unfold wherever that leads. That is the choice I make without attachment ( well mostly lol) to the outcome as much as wanting to see what the possibility of this game could be. Little things that we say are being heard by the development team and helping this game evolve. We just don't get to know at this point where exactly that will lead, but I do know that it is an intricate part of the creation of this game. Keep giving your ideas and examples everyone. I know we do make a difference.


"Dare to live by letting go"
by Tom Althouse

 

In fairness, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who loved Ultima VII's combat

 

No guys, don't start wandering off and attacking monsters several screens away! I don't want to hunt for your dead bodies and carry you back to the healer!

 

Im all for donations if you like a game but since its impossible to know at this point it feels like im being beaten over the head into submission as if i somehow should feel guilty for not selling my last good kidney to support a game you dont even know if you like. Id be more apt to donate if i wasnt constantly reminded that if i dont i wont be able to experience the coolest aspects of the game. To me it seems like a rich mans game that will maintain a tiny dedicated core but nothing else. And thats fine if thats what he wants but to the majority of people its very offputting to someone who has other monetary obligations and hobbies aside from gaming

 

*********************
I agree you should not feel beaten down. You know your own circumstances the best. The game is going to be totally cool for anyone to experience even if they didn't participate in the kickstarter or this forum. We just happen to be here. No worries the game will still offer all the richness. People will work harder for a house and not know that much about the difference over time. They won't necessarily know that much about this beginning. They will just be playing a game without knowing all the roots and debates about it. I will all be ok.

 

It just seems counter intuitive to do it this way. If the aim is to make money theb it wont work cause your excluding a large portion of your would be sub base by having loads of entry barriers. If your making it just to make a fun game id imagine youd want as many ppl to experience it as possible and that requires low entry barriers

Granted its still in development but everything ive seen that is noteworthy costs money. Its lead me to a love hate relationship with this game

 

****
Everyone who wants to can experience it. It's just that we're seeing it early on. In the past normally people just buy a new game and get busy crafting or whatever they do to earn money to get a house, mount, or whatever. That is all possible in SOTA, in game money can get housing even though rare. People can have it, it will just take time and probably be much more satisfying in the long run. We are in a fundraising time to get this game made. That is the big difference, for some that can't afford to do much they can just hang out and offer good feed back and ideas or come back later if they prefer. Everyone is welcome. Who knows anyone's status for pledges unless they want to discuss it. I welcome anyone and will not ask that question. Peace to you.

 

I agree with what OP said but also understand this is a new game. The main takeaway is that I believe the game shouldn't be spoon-fed to us in a dangling carrot type of manner. The risk/reward in UO was phenomenal. If I died, I knew I had to get back to my body ASAP or I'd be at risk of being looted. At the same time, there was that risk/reward for the person looting... they couldn't recall and they would be flagged fair game for PVP by turning gray. This made the game GREAT. There needs to be challenge to the game that isn't a minimap pointing us to the location we need to go next. I believe LB mentioned this in one of his early videos. He mentioned you would talk to a man in a tavern and he'd describe a location. You'd have to figure out what the message was then act on it. I have 100% faith the devs will deliver on this game. It will have its own soul and be something I plan on enjoying for a long time. Long live SoTA!

 

My concern isnt really what happens upon death. Its the combat that takes place prior. I think it will be too mich chaos and horribly inneficient.

What happens when a situation arises you dont have the ability drop in that you need?

What happens when your ability drops in but in the wrong situation?

That is why you need abilities available to choose the optimal time for use. Shouldnt i be more focused on the a tion taking place rather than focusing on watching hotbar skills drop and prayig its the rght one? It soubds like t leaves way too much to randomness at the expense of player effectivity. You can only focus on one thing at a time so either u have to watch your cards dropping in or the action taking place and the one you dont focus on suffers from your forced lack of attention

Its a scientific fact you can only focus on one thing at a time. Multi tasking isnt possible ad you think of it. Its not possible to do two things at once rather you just fluctuate your attention very fast back and forth thats why to me this system sounds like it is going against the fundamental design of the human brain

 

Can you supply a link or direct location reference to this scientific fact?

 

Here's a solid source, though this isn't scientific fact (or even theory for that matter). Go here for Dr. Miller's site.

 

Tell that to any ventriloquist that can talk while drinking.

It's all about how you define multitasking and the family of skills. You can bend your elbow while moving your fingers. You can walk and talk at the same time.

Writing, talking, and listening, yeah, that is split focus and not multitasking.

 

Muscle memory, multiple brains, and timeslicing.

 

Windows 7 on a dual core Itanium with 32 gigs of ram

 

I define multitasking the same as numerous scientific researchers do that jabe studied this topic. You can focus on one thing at a time which isnt the same as being able to do multiple muscle reflex a tivities simultaneously because it doesng invovle focusing of the brain but i wont argue the facts they can be found via goggle search about scientific studies involving multi tasking. Its more factual based than gobal warming and people take that as factual.

 

mmjarec,

More factually based than global warming?

I would have spent some time researching/thinking about on your idea as it appeared to be backed by some intelligence. Thank you for correcting me and saving me some time.

Mordecai. Thank you for the link.

 

It is more factually based than global warming because the global warming alarmists have used factually incorrect numbers to make their point valid and in some cases outright changed the numbers to support their views. Also its more correct because unlike gobal warming there arent many if any that dispute the studies that show humans only able to focus on one thing at a time and that multi tasking is an illusion rather people just switch their attention very fast.

I provided no links because its easily searchable for the info and secondly most of the study reports i found are listed as the homepage of the study thus cannot link directly to the report via my phone unless ppl dont mind being directed to the main page and if so they might as well do a google searc that takes them directly to the evidence

 

Disputes among the scientific community don't make any side of the argument inherently wrong or "less true". It is just the normal way of control among that community.

EDIT : Disputing is one thing, proving wrong is another.

 

On the matter of global climate change, there is virtually no dispute about its existence in the scientific community. Only in the public eye, which happens to be heavily influenced by popular media (which is largely owned by conservative organizations [FOX and Disney corp. to name a few] which hold strong ties to big oil and other opponents of climate change), are there disputes.

There was a time when the science community understood that atmospheric CO2 was rising at an unusual rate, but was divided regarding whether or not human activity was responsible. Most of the research that concluded that human activity wasn't responsible for global climate change was sponsored by special interest groups, which had something to lose from curbing carbon emissions, and since scientific consensus on global climate change was reached, these sponsorships have been reallocated from science research to anti-science media propaganda.

However, thanks to scientific breakthroughs made in the 21st Century, it became increasingly clear that human activity is responsible for the unusually high atmospheric carbon levels. CO2, like other green house gases, effects (not affects) global climate change. This is shown through the Seuss Effect, which is explained in further detail below.

The Seuss Effect is a change in atmospheric carbon content brought on by large releases of fossil fuel-derived carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon-12 (12C) comprises the bulk of the carbon content in the atmosphere, but carbon isotopes 13C and 14C also are present at lower levels (which have been stable for thousands of years). Carbon isotopes are less stable than 12C, and so the older the source of the carbon is, the less 13C and 14C will be present. In fossil fuels, which are hundreds of millions of years old, the 13C and 14C levels are very low.

From this information, one can deduce that, if human carbon production was significant enough to impact global atmospheric CO2, then we would see a notable decline in carbon isotope levels, which we have. In other words, the scientific community has reached consensus that global climate change exists, and is directly related to human activity.