Tram Killed UO is Tram back?

Well, even if trammel was a mistake in its implementation, that doesn't change the fact people were abandoning the ship due to the problems with the way PVP was being handled.

Maybe, if they design the game from the start to be different and provide other ways ie more difficult ai and monsters / problems as well as allowing those to PVP who want to there might be a better result. Going back to the original way is not an option to them, and they have made that clear.

 

As a fanatic partisant, a single thing to say: Go Full PvP Go GO GO !

 

@Abydos I'm getting worried about you...

 

@Illesac "@rune_74 ? they said it was a ?problem? because people were listing it as a reason for leaving the game during exit interviews. Let me explain:

Players exitting = loss of revenue
Loss of revenue to a publicly traded company = a suit whom never played the game making a decision
This decision = TRAMMEL"

Couldn't have said it better myself. BTW "the suit" is Gordon Walton


@rune_74 Later on UO implemented, afaik, the first group PvE mobs that required sincere coordination. Champion mobs were absolutely nothing to mess and usually devolved into pure chaos. Unfortunately the game was just too out of whack by then. Going back to another thing I just said and people forget is, PvE in some aspects actually got almost unplayable in Fel with the inclusion of Trammel. Go in Deceit where liche lords used to be only to get insta dropped by 50 silver snakes wasn't fun for anyone.

And Rune if you watch that video I posted "the suit" lol that cracks me up, really does talk about how success defined by his point of view is keeping his plush job and appeasing the masses. Trammel was a bandaid (some might even venture to call a gimmick) not a cure. I'll even admit a real big part of many people failing in PvP was simply not having the internet connection to compete. @Illesac fell victim to the good old "lag kills people" I left UO for awhile due to this. There were other flaws in PvP but by and large PvP was avoidable in Fel before they started messing with the PvP. Once they added faction wars and trammel the game just lost it's essence.

I know LB's goal is to get the community PvPing. Hopefully taking the old aspects and balancing the game will lure, for the lack of a better term, the carebears back into excitement of on your toes adrenaline gaming.

 

I think the problem I see is that you dont really want to alienate either group of people. Ideally you want everyone to play the game and have a good time, especially a game that is focusing on playing with smaller social groups.

I really like to PvP, some of the best gaming experiences I have had have been PvPing in the older generation of MMOs. Nothing has been able to come even close to that feeling. Is it Nostalgia? I dont know, maybe...

Lets say that SotA takes a hardcore PvP game direction, complete with full open world PvP, full player looting and the removal of single player online mode. Not only am I sure that most of my friends wont want to play, I am not sure if I will want to play.It may appeal to that niche, but the game needs more than just niche support to be successful and get decent funding.

Now its hard for me to say that, because I think that the downfall of most every MMO to date has been because they have "sold out" and focused on whatever the majority wants, or the casuals want, or whatever can make them more money. It seems like every time that happens, and the game direction shifts its only a matter of time before you piss off the people that were there from the beginning, who play the game because they were the target it was designed for.

It is interesting to see everyones opinions on this issue, even if it is speculation based on past experiences. I dont think anyone (myself included) will know what is going to work best until we get to try the game out for ourselves and see it in action.

 

You don't want a tram thing, but then again you don't want people put off by the game. If you create a game too dependant on being wrapped in cotton wool, you alienate the PvPer, if you create a full PvP world, you alienate the PvE people.

Splitting the world is a disaster waiting to happen, a different mechanism is needed.

I still have no idea how PvP works anyway in this game. Is it purely in instances? is it on the world map? Do you run around in groups? I'm not sure this is anything like UO anyway, it could be a big disappointment for people!

 

There is a hilarious lack of logic in the notion that Tram killed UO when it resulted in the murderers ending up on the dead end of the stick.

It's hard for me to believe that the initial thread-starter was serious with his complaints.

The PKs loved the excitement of killing players who did not wish to fight them, who were ambushed and slaughtered and pillaged at the whims of the reds, and then Tram ruined the game for the poor, beleaguered reds when the awful blues could join forces, get strong, and come back and...kill the PKs with numbers.

Ironic, yeah!

Funny...you bet!

Killed UO? Please.

The PK whining about the unfairness of getting killed himself when he didn't like the new odds strikes me as akin to a guy wondering why his karma is so lousy after he did evil things his entire life. Maybe he had it coming?

Only someone with an amazingly obtuse perspective could make a post like the one that started this long thread.

Another thing you have to wonder about...when people are 13 year old PKs....when 20 years has passed them by...do they graduate to more mature social roleplayers, or do they remain murderers with names like LeWtDoOd and carry on like they once did as ancient 33 year old codgers.

Do the new crop of 13 year olds kick THEIR now decaying reflexes about the screen? Will the now old, withered PKs whine for fairness about that like they did when the blues took 'em out by outnumbering them? Maybe insist on some manner of leveling factor, like making the new young turk PKs in 7th grade fight whilst blindfolded or giving the old PKs magic canes that shoot lighting bolts to even the playing field?

I guess this new social experiment will answer these questions and more!

 

@Otha - your comment added 0 value to the conversation we've been having. If you have actual mechanics or conversation you'd like to have bring it to the table.

"Tram ruined the game for the poor, beleaguered reds when the awful blues could join forces, get strong, and come back and?kill the PKs with numbers."

LOL! You're funny and completely WRONG.

Can we get some @Owain to explain to this poor soul that PK hunting was a huge part of the game before Trammel and this notion that blues were able to join forces and kill all the PKs off is some fairytale like duck tales?

All this said I don't think anyone on the dev team is even entertaining the notion of true PKs. A player has to enter a PvP area by choice and there are hundreds of other areas to go play. This is not the east roads of Brit where as soon as you stepped out of town you got hit with a paralyze and 4 guys show up to finish you off with an explosion/EB combo.

 

Yes, Otha has things confused. There were no PKs in Trammel. That was the point. You had to travel to Felucia to participate in PvP.

My experience in Trammel is non-existent, however, since I moved to UO:Siege Perilous following the Trammel/Felucia split, and as Illesac says, on SP the Anti-PKs, and my guild in particular, the KGB, were very successful in hunting PKs, as our guild archives from that period show. http://w3.the-kgb.com/kgbnewsa/kgbnewsarc.htm

The KGB was also active on Pacific before the split, so Illesac is correct there as will. The PK/Anti-PK wars started in the UO-Beta test, so there is a LONG history there for that.

 

The problem developers have is to make a game that satisfies both the felucca UO players that still search for a game that is as good as that old game was (pre Age of Shadows) and the PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Richard Garriott set a standard for PvP games with Ultima Online and it was not just a PvP game, it was a social game never seen before. And i'm talking about UO felucca now. There havent been a game with such interesting social interaction after felucca UO pre Age of Shadows february 2003.

Players cared and interacted as no game after and that is what i want to see in SotA.

If SotA developers make the game to much themepark (WoW to simplify) the old UO players that seek a game as oldschool UO felucca will just not stay arround, they will leave. There have to be full loot and risk vs reward and best rewards to the ones taking risks at the far right end of the slider. PK:s should roam the countryside and they should take the highest risks with statloss on death.

If the ones that preffered trammel and those features have to PvP and get killed against their will they will leave.

That is the problem.

A slider can provide a sollution but then the slider have to go all the way back to felucca pre Age of Shadows, introduced february 2003 (destroyed UO felucca), pre trammel will just not work.

SotA developers need to have a slider that goes from no PvP and just about no risk as no loot to open PvP with full loot and a risk vs reward enviroment that rewards the skillful player that take risks. And having to fight against other human beings is the ultimate risk and should have the greatest rewards. Giving the same reward to the ones that take no risk will create a game noone really understands.

 

@Illesac:

<blockquote>People need to be herded into PvP (myself included) so they don?t take the easy way out in life.</blockquote>

Sincerely, if a game needs to bribe or herd players into PvP, I consider it's PvP an utter failure and will refuse to play it.

PvP, at least in my opinion, should already be it's own reward, it should be fun enough that players want to engage even without rewards. If that is not the case, if I have to be bribed to engage in PvP, why should I even care about it? Why not change to a game where players engage in PvP just for the fun of it?

(I do have the same opinion about PvE, BTW; if the main reason players are engaging in PvE is because of the rewards, there is something very wrong, and I'm quite likely to leave the game before long.)

Having some rewards for participating is fine, though (and a requirement in games where the character advances in power), as long as it's reasonably balanced across all game modes. Ideally a player participating mainly in PvP and another participating only in PvE should advance at a very similar speed, given similar skill levels, dedication, and available time. If the advancement speed is roughly the same, players are effectively free to choose whichever game mode they actually want, instead of being pushed into the most efficient one.

<blockquote>1. Entire world accessible as SPO/FPO but loot/skill gain is degraded?
2. 25% of the world PvP only?</blockquote>

Sincerely neither one is a good idea. What would be best is to tune the difficulty of playing PvE to match that of PvP, keep an eye on progression speed, and make sure neither PvP nor PvE has any progression speed advantages.

Anything else is basically forcing efficiency-oriented players into a specific mode, even if they don't like that mode. Don't seem like a good long term idea for me, as players forced into the model they dislike are much more likely to just leave.

Also: you are talking about adding effective penalties to those that are, perhaps, the most prone to play offline already. I believe the likeliest consequence of this wouldn't be more PvP players, but instead more offline players, which won't help you and might actually harm the game as a whole.


<blockquote>This means that the upper say 25% of resources and monsters are only available in the danger zones.</blockquote>

This is specifically against what I want. I actually want to play the most challenging PvE content the game has to offer; I don't avoid challenge, I crave for it. I just won't ever accept non-consensual PvP.

If single player online ends up being "easy mode" compared with the offline mode due to the most challenging content being locked away, why should I even play it? Better to stick to offline in that case.

<blockquote> The idea that I need to be on high alert because I don?t know when someone could attack is what we?re asking.</blockquote>

So, forcing "carebears" to accept the risk of PvP will mean more players to try and attack you? Somehow I don't think this likely. Wouldn't you think most of the players that want to attack each other would be already joining PvP with or without being forced into it?


@rschultzy80:

<blockquote>Games have taken the ******** course all these years because WoW basically looked at UO and Everquest and said which was more profitable and while many of you will sit and say it?s because PKers ruined the game. The actuality of the situation is that Everquest wasn?t opened world and directed you linearly through a storyline. Many players in UO just never found a way to get going or have fun because there was just so much to do. It?s another topic discussed in the video. It?s a shame really because it?s polluted an entire generation of gamers.</blockquote>

I sincerely see this in another light. I don't think WoW "polluted" a generation of gamers; rather, I believe the UO (and now EVE) player base represents the number of players that are interested in that kind of experience, and the WoW player base represents the number of players that never wanted that kind of harsh experience, where they can be attacked mostly anywhere and lose actual progression through PvP action.

In other words, I don't think open PvP and risky gameplay would be any more popular nowadays if WoW didn't exist. Instead, other games would have morphed into the kind of casual-friendly, risk-free environment WoW presented, and taken those players anyway.

After all, WoW had, at it's best, 12M players, plus another dozen million former players. I believe most of them only took the plunge into MMOs because they were presented with a friendly, risk-free environment to try, and would never have even tried a game that treated PvP and risk the same way as early UO and EVE.

<blockquote>I know LB?s goal is to get the community PvPing. Hopefully taking the old aspects and balancing the game will lure, for the lack of a better term, the carebears back into excitement of on your toes adrenaline gaming. </blockquote>

AFAIK, his objective is to get emergent gameplay to happen. PvP is a tool for this, but it's not the only one.

Also, just as important seems to be convincing offline players to play online, and solo players to engage in the open play online mode. Forcing PvP on players, either for all players online or just for OPO mode players, is the surest way to botch in those objectives.

Besides, I don't think there's much hope of ever convincing the "carebears" to accept non-consensual PvP. You seem to start from the premise that a "********" forced into full PvP will start having fun, see the error in his ways, and choose to engage in PvP afterwards; as someone that played WoW in PvP servers for the better part of a decade, and intentionally tried playing open PvP games to see if I could like the experience, I can say that not every "********" can get to enjoy PvP. I would be surprised if even a significant minority can be convinced to keep playing PvP.

Convincing the "carebears" to engage in consensual PvP might work - but for that to work the PvP has to be effectively consensual, allowing the player to leave PvP whenever he is not in the mood for it and not suffer undue penalties because of that option.


@Ara:

<blockquote>SotA developers need to have a slider that goes from no PvP and just about no risk as no loot to open PvP with full loot and a risk vs reward enviroment that rewards the skillful player that take risks. And having to fight against other human beings is the ultimate risk and should have the greatest rewards. Giving the same reward to the ones that take no risk will create a game noone really understands.</blockquote>

As long as it's actually risk/challenge/effort vs reward, instead of just PvP vs PvE; and that the devs take care to create PvE situations that are as challenging, and as rewarding, as PvP can be; then I'm all for that.

Otherwise it's just a clumsily disguised way to punish PvE players for choosing to avoid PvP.

BTW, the knife needs to cut both ways. In an unbalanced PvP fight in which the winner was never in actual risk, he (or they) should get little, if any, reward, just like most MMOs reduce or remove the rewards for killing mobs that aren't a challenge for the player.

 

@SilentStrider - I respect your opinion and well put together thoughts but I think what's missing in you simplified PvP vs. PvE world is that PvP is only that and PvE is only that. When I say PvP I mean an area, like a dungeon, is mainly everyone PvE'ing but your enemy guild can kill you at anytime. While a few PvP dueling arenas would be nice I don't think it is enough to add the gameplay (surprise, fear, and panic) most of us PvP'ers are looking.

<cite> his objective is to get emergent gameplay to happen. PvP is a tool for this, but it?s not the only one. </cite>

I think you may have accidentally made an argument against yourself and I point to the anti-PK guilds that emerged on every shard. This was not just some band of vigilantes on one shard, every shard eventually got so tired of the PK problem that these guilds popped up everywhere, <strong>aka emergent gameplay.</strong> I'm not saying the PK system in UO was by any means fair as it was heavily skewed in favor of the PK and caused new players to have a horrible experience if they tried to walk out of Brit.

<cite>BTW, the knife needs to cut both ways</cite>

What are the non-PvE'ers sacrificing if open PvP is not implemented in some of the world? All I asked for was 25% of the world.

 

@Illesac:

From previous interviews, hangouts, etc, seems like open PvP will be implemented in the whole map - if the player has opted for it. If the player hasn't opted for PvP, then he will see the same map as a PvE-only zone.

What isn't available, and might not be available anywhere, is non-consensual PvP.

So, what you asked is not for open PvP to be available everywhere, but for pure PvE to be unavailable in 25% of the map no matter what the player prefers. That despite the fact PvPers already have the whole map to fight against each other. And on top of that, you ask for that 25% to be the most challenging and rewarding 25%.

Open PvP and non-consensual PvP are quite different beasts, you know. For example, PvP-only MMOs, like Planetside 2, are basically consensual PvP (since the only reason to log into the game is to engage in PvP) with open PvP.

BTW: I'm not exactly simplifying. I just think PvP and PvE are just like ice cream and spaghetti; great apart, not any good together. I enjoy both PvP and PvE games, but I typically can't stand games that mix PvP and PvE (mainly because PvP in the middle of PvE is typically non-consensual PvP).

 

@Silent Strider, I think PvP and PvE can coexist quite will together. PvE is for cash, PvP is for fun. Can't have fun if you don't have cash.

 

@Owain:

Coexist doesn't necessarily mean doing both at the same time. When I can do both, but one at a time, without having to worry about the other in the mean time, I can effectively get to like both aspects of a single game.

For example, I'm getting interested in the proposed PvP missions in SotA. The one thing about how I would do them, though, is that while doing one of them I would stop treating the game as having PvE at all and, instead, think of the game as a PvP-only game until I finish (or abandon) the mission.

Besides, that is my preference. It doesn't mean that the game has to be completely that way; I just want to never be forced into PvP when I'm not in the mood for it, and I'm rarely, if ever, in the mood for PvP when I'm doing PvE (and, conversely, I'm not in the mood for PvE when doing PvP; I mostly stopped doing GW2's WvW because there is too much PvE mixed into that to my liking, unbelievable though it sounds coming from someone like me). As long as the game doesn't force me into unwanted PvP while I'm playing some PvE, I don't care if other players can choose to be available for PvP all the time.

 

I disagree with everything you have to say @SilentStrider. I think we need to define consensual PvP in your example. My understanding from the interviews is that a player consents to PvP when they enter an area that is open PvP. When I read your statement it makes me think I have to basically run up to you, click your player and ask them if they want to duel. If you don't agree with my view of your PvP system I'd like to hear how you implement a "PvP mission" without it feeling like a very contrived duel. Also how do you handle the mission if there are no human players that want to take you on? Spawn an NPC...now you're back to a pure PvE game. The world needs to be free and open. I'm all for making new players protected and alerting players when they go into danger zones so they are making a conscious effort to turn their PvP brain on but I don't want a game where the only PvP is the same battle scenario over and over. That would be boring, I'd rather fish all day.

 

@Silent Strider, if you don't wish PvP while doing PvE, then perhaps you aren't much of a PvPer. Otherwise, you would PvE, yet always be prepared for PvP. That was the environment I preferred on UO Siege Perilous. You are welcome to your own preferences, of course.

@Illesac, there have been many ways that have been discussed regarding how one flags for PvP. The PvP quests are but one. It is not certain exactly what other methods there will be, but these have been suggested.

1. Quests, as mentioned.

2. Duels, as mentioned.

3. Arena solo or group PvP competitions.

4. Open PvP geographical areas. Travel to these areas grants implied consent for PvP. In these areas are Castles that can be captured and controlled by guilds, factions, etc.

5. Membership in a guild that has declared to permit open PvP against other PvP guilds.

6. Membership in a guild that has not declared for open PvP, but has declared war against a rival guild, and that guild has accepted the guild war.

7. Membership in a faction. You consent to open PvP against one or more rival factions.

8. If you commit a crime, such as theft, you are subject to attack by anyone.

9. If you are in an open PvP guild and you attack a member of another open PvP guild, but you are not at war, that is also a criminal act, and you are subject to attack by anyone. (Status as a criminal is subject to a timeout. In UO it was 5 minutes, if I recall correctly. If you are killed, the criminal status is cleared on ressurection.)

10. If you murder another PvP under the conditions in 9, above, you are a murderer, and can be attacked by anyone. (In UO you had to have murdered 5 times to be declared a murder. Murdern counts evaporated at the rate of 1 per 8 hours in game. Death does not reset the flag. Once your count was below 5, you were not longer flagged as a murderer).

I'm not sure how many of these will be implemented in SotA. I hope they all will be, because that will provide the best environment for PvP for a wide variety of player styles.

Did I miss any?

 

Let me first say that I have been following this game since the beginning of the Kickstarter and have pledged substantially (at least for me). I have read probably 80% of the posts in the forums here and though I have been very tempted to post many times on various subjects before, the number of posts and the ideas presented by some here have finally drawn me in.

I have been playing RPG games since I was 15 and got my first computer some 20 years ago. I joined UO on day one of launch and played happily for about 2 months. At that time I left (because I could not afford the subscription cost) and didn't look back until AoS hit. My biggest complaint was of course PKers. However it was Trammel that brought me back to the game and I played on an off for several years after that. Boredom was almost always the reason I left, but as with so many I was always drawn to the game for the feeling that I got in those early days. Unfortunately I was never able to relive those days because Fellucia was always so barren and rarely used that when I did actually go there I would usually only make it just out of range to make it back to the protection of the moongate before 15 Reds all vying for my life and loot jumped out to kill me.

I quit playing on the official shards when EA purchased OSI and took over the game. I have been on many, many free shards since then and almost always the ones that I have had the most fun on are the Pre-Trammel ones. Still there was always that one jerk that would PK and camp me just to cause me grief. Sometimes they would do it so many times in a row that I would just forget it and move on and leave my corpse to rot. I have been victim to all kinds of things done to cause me grief, sometimes they would take my gear and place it neatly out on the ground all around my corpse and taunt me to retrieve it. Other times they would Rez me, help me gather my stuff and kill me again. I was not even safe in my house. I have had times where I would log in to do some training in my house and a PK would run around my house trying to exploit the game to kill me, or try to taunt me to come out. Thankfully I am exceedingly patient (Children will do that to you) and often I would just laugh and taunt them back. The kind (Rare) Anti-Pk would occasionally see that I was being grieved and step in to assist but that didn't even always work.

My point here is that for me at least Trammel gave me the ability to do what I wanted in the game safely, but it almost always got so boring that I would just quit playing (giving up all that I had acquired in the process). I would not say that Trammel ruined the game because it allowed me to experience the harder parts of the game without having to look over my shoulder. I can say that I never enjoyed being killed every time I wanted to raise my taming or one of my other non combat skills. However, the addition of Trammel did make the game get old really quickly and it made it so that those that did want to PVP (especially PK) were relegated to Fel and because those that went to Fel were so few and far between, all the PKers would just camp the moongates lying in wait for the unsuspecting traveler which made it even less fun to go there.

What I hope they put in the game as far as options for PVP is a flag that sets you to PVP or PVE. The flag should have a 12 or 24 hour cool down to prevent exploitation of the system and all criminal acts that you are caught for automatically flag you PVP. If you are flagged PVP you only see others that are likewise flagged PVP. The same goes for non-PVP. Criminals cannot flag non-PVP and all players can kill criminals without repercussion (Not sure how/if this could work for non-PVP flagged players). All things are open to all players regardless of how they are flagged. The Devs can figure out how to balance the game to make each just as lucrative as the other or provide the correct reward relative to the difficulty of ones experiences within the game.

I know that PVP is a hot button issue and everyone has strong opinions about what they think is right. One thing that I think we should always remember which would keep things civilized (in this and all of the other forum topics) is that we are all (I guess I should say most of us are) here because we like what RG has done in the past with Ultima/Online, and we trust him to bring us the experience that will give us the feeling that we had when we played those titles in the past. Why else donate hard earned money to a project that is not even in Alpha yet.

@Owain
Thank you for your posts, I have become interested to see what you are going to say on the topics where you do decide to comment. Usually you have a voice of reason and often I can tell you are trying to accommodate the feelings of the other commentators in the forums as well. (Which is more than I can say for some). I especially enjoyed reading the archives from your guild and they have caused (much to my surprise) me to reminisce (almost to the point of day dreaming) on the times of old. Though I have never been a PVPer in any game ever, I would like to say that in this new adventure I will be going full PVP if given the option in SotA. Since I have started hearing about the adventures of KGB, I have been curious about joining your guild so that I too could help protect the innocent citizens of SotA if (this option is available and) KGB will grace the lands of our new world. After reading the archives my feelings on the matter have become much stronger.

If your read all of that, you are awesome. Thanks for taking the time to hear what I have to say.

May your beard grow full and your blade never rust!

!Long Live Lord British!

Yours truly,

Lord Elryin Silvertree

 

@Elyrin, thank you. Currently the KGB is conducting operations in Darkfall, which has recently gone live. If you go to the KGB entry page and read the latest news entry, you can find out all you need to know about our involvement there. It will be a year or more before SotA is released, so this might be a good opportunity for you to join the ranks.

If Darkfall isn't your cup of tea, register as a guest and hang out in the public forums, and wait for SotA release. When you decide to apply for membership, find the link that directs you to the application page and follow the directions. List me as a sponsor. If you have any questons, send me a PM on the KGB boards, or ask me here.

 

@Elryin Silvertree Good to see you know little to nothing about OSI's / UO's history although you claim to have played it at launch. You could have easily googled these facts, it is available on wikipedia.

EA has owned OSI and the Ultima franchise in general since 1992, and in 2004 Origin was disbanded by EA.

I'm just trying to point out that Trammel was more than likely a EA idea / decision in the first place because their motivation is always been more money over better games. Doesn't matter how unique, different, and special your game is, game could be doing perfectly fine and making a profit, they don't care, it could always be making more! Even if it fundamentally changes the whole game and ruins / destroys it for people that have played it since the very beginning. Doesn't matter if it is not even the same game anymore, as long as it brings in more money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_Systems

"In September 1992, Electronic Arts acquired the company.[3] In 1997, Origin released one of the earliest and most successful graphical MMORPGs, Ultima Online. After this title, Electronic Arts decided that Origin would become an online-only company after the completion of Ultima IX in 1999. However, within a year's time, in part due to Ultima IX's poor reception,[4] EA canceled all of Origin's new development projects, including Ultima Online 2, Privateer Online, and Harry Potter Online. Richard Garriott left Origin shortly after and founded Destination Games in 2000.

In later years, Origin mainly existed to support and expand Ultima Online and to develop further online games based on the Ultima franchise such as Ultima X: Odyssey, originally to be released in 2004 but later canceled. In February 2004, the studio was disbanded by Electronic Arts."