Tram Killed UO is Tram back?

Get back to me when you feel like responding to things I've actually written. Until such time, have fun fighting your strawmen.

The Kickstarter pitch does not indicate that LB is trying to make another MMO, and the devs have tended to avoid using that term. SOTA will primarily be a RPG along the lines of the single-player Ultimas with online features. If you donated to get the UO experience again, I can only say that you should have read the pitch more carefully. Also, I disagree that moving away from PvP killed UO, and so does Raph Koster according to his post-mortem. If you have any facts and numbers to back up your contention, I'd like to see them. I've provided those to back my position, so it's only fair that you do the same. As for no game tapping into the full loot market correctly, this is just an evasion. Many games have made the attempt but didn't get the support needed to really get off the ground. EVE is the only exception, and as stated it is full of safe zones and does not ever require PvP.

It has already been stated that PvP will not be required to obtain anything, except possibly PvP oriented items and maybe some decorations. It's not set in stone and you can certainly request that be changed, but I wouldn't get your hopes too high. I request that they not deny any content to non-PVP players.

Having danger zones is a good idea. However, if full loot PvP in the style of UO is what happens there, I'll never enter, and neither will the vast majority of players. I'm not going to play piñata for a pack of naked PKs. I would gladly enter if it was only the contents of my pack up for grabs, but having to constantly reequip myself isn't exciting. It's tedious scutwork, and I have better things to do with my limited time on this planet. I find it funny that so many full loot advocates want all the tedious gear grinding of WoW, only more tedious and without the interesting and varied gear to show for it. If I wanted to spend endless hours grinding for equipment, I'd just go back to WoW. At least then I reap the rewards of the grind and not some griefer who possibly killed me with hacks.

 

The train has left the station on this one. I don't think there's any argument you could use to convince Richard Garriott to put in involuntary open PvP.

 

So you're going to ignore the many arguments I've made in favor of throwing mindless insults? I'm sure the devs will find that very convincing. When did making cogent arguments supported by evidence become trolling, by the way?

 

Hopefully he changes his mind. I don't think there is any room for another friendly fantasy mmo. Without a bit of forced conflict and lawlessness the ruined reputation of richard garriott pretending to go to his roots isn't going to be enough to float this thing for very long.

 

Don't think it's going to happen. The reason RG has come to this conclusion is that he has listened to his customers. There are FAR more paying customers who want PvP by consent only than there are those who want open PvP as it was when UO first opened. I think that market is currently being filled by the second iteration of Darkfall.

 

He would have to go back on his promise of being able to choose who we will play with, and the promise to allow offline play, too.

If you haven't seem the concept of selective multiplayer, take a look at the official explanation at https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955

Then, pray tell me: in a game where players are guaranteed to be able to set single player online, and while in that mode never see another player, how would it even be possible to force players to participate in PvP?

What's more, the game will be fully playable offline, and moddable to boot. If PvP was mandatory while playing online, PvE players that put more value in being safe from PvP than in social interaction would just play offline, while still being able to experience the whole content (even group content with the help of NPC hirelings).

Unless Portalarium went back on those early promises, attempting to force PvP would just guarantee that the PvE players would move to single player, both online and offline. They would still not be available as targets for you.

In short, in order for you to have what you want, Portalarium would have to break not only it's often repeated promise that all PvP will be consensual, but also the promise that players will be able to choose who they will play with, as well as the promise of an offline mode. Given the amount of lost trust breaking all those promises would provoke I truly doubt it can ever happen.

That being said, Portalarium do want to provide something that will at least create the illusion of an open PvP game for those that want that. As far as we know, players choosing to engage in PvP should only see other players that made the same choice, so you will be able to attack anyone you see just like in an open PvP game. The difference is that everyone you see has opted to participate in the PvP; you won't get unwilling targets like you had in UO.

 

None of your arguments are strong. You have already been responded fully by Dagless. Whatever you suggest is not sustainable, your plans are suitable for only short-term. What do you want ? Optional PvP, why ? Free farm with no risk, free crafting, no danger at all. Do you know what will happen 2 months later the game was released ? Everyone will be maxed out in terms of items, skills and everything.

You are talking about gaming style of everyone, sorry but games have a style, not players, and there is only one style for a game. If you try to implement every opinion to the game and there are multi styles, it means that you split up the game into parts where everyone will be preserved from each other , what you suggest is simply to create separate servers.

Most of the MMORPGs these days are totally safe to farm. And none of them are enjoyable after a few months of gameplay because you are done with the game. After maxing out your level, you can go to PvP which will now be boring. We don't want dueling as I have repeated billions of times. If the PvP is something optional, it will also be something boring, people will farm unrisky, role play will also be blocked because of non dangerous world (all you can do is to salute each other and start 'Mi'Lord' conversations, phew). Maybe RG won't make it a MMO but it is still a RPG and he should consider role playing facts. Carebearing role-play is not a role play. I could be a pirate ganking fishers or a bandit rushing miners and if I am caught by a guard I would be punished. None of these will happen because no crafter would choose PvP, even though they do, we will rarely find people who chose PvP.

Optional PvP will kill this game just like it happened in Trammel. And they will have to constantly add quests, items, monsters to keep up and they will some day get tired of this and we will start to see low quality things around. Will PvP really be optional just because non sustainable ******** suggestions are too many ? Well carebears are not game designers and players can't think long-term except for their goods. If you implement everything suggested here, It will actually be our game which I can also create one using unity3d. And trust me, player-driven games are not so good If you check out great kickstarter projects which have failed later because of that.

I don't want to post anymore to this thread, It gives me cancer to constantly argue with carebears. Please just think sustainable, in long-term means. I don't want this game to be stillbirth because I have so many respect to RG for his old games. I don't care about my pledge but I can't play a game I don't like.

 

What anyone at this point wants about PvP is irrelevant. PvP is optional in SotA and it broke my heart. But I moved past that, and on to bigger and better things as I suggest others do when it comes to that subject.

Also one could argue that risk is certainly there from a PvE angle and that it won't be free farm, crafting or from danger.

It is the job of the creators of this game to find a way to keep PKs and Crafters occupied during and after the main story has been completed, that is that. Besides, I'm going to have much fun finding new and interesting ways to grief lumberjacks and tailors, and alchemists, OH MY!

 

It is just pre-alpha, UO had a level system on pre-alpha lol. Everything can change.

 

I just don't get, why so many players want to force other players into their game style and call it freedom. And I don't get the comparison "to all those other crappy MMOs", because SotA won't be as other MMOs. The dual-scale map with the matchmaking-system alone makes this game in my eyes totally different than typical WoW-MMOs (which aren't all bad by the way; I especially enjoyed playing the story of some of them). Like it was stated many many times in this and other threads, it's quite possible that hardcore PvP-players will never encounter a PvE player in the game and won't even recognize, that there are other players around him, that he will never encounter => they will experience a PvP players (or players that tolerate PvPers) only game.

So PvP-hardcore players will get a fully PvP-game and PvE-only players won't have to encounter Player Killer while Roleplaying or Coop-Questing (unless they want to!). Many other games use similar techniques like Instancing or Different Servers for Different Gamestyles (even Ultima Online still does it with all those player created shards like SP, etc.). And I don't see many PvP players in those games moaning, that they can't kill the players from the PvE servers. There could be some imbalances with weapons and crafting (gathering ressources, etc.), but that's nothing, that a bit of balancing in alpha/beta can't solve (more random monster encounters for PvE-only players for example, etc.).

For me Ultima was never about PvP, but about the amazing story in a huge immersive world. Why? I only played the old Ultimas and skipped Ultima Online. And I never experienced "Tram" in Ultima 4 or Ultima 7. I tested UO for some time, but didn't like it, because the monsters all had to behave braindead to give all those Avatars a chance, that roamed the world at the same time. In SotA, this won't be longer necessary, because there won't be a necessity to make monsters intentionally dumb because of the dual scale map. And because of the dual scale map there is no need for linear leveling or questing because, like we see in most monoscale MMOs. If SotA works, it will give a lot freedom of choice to the players, to go where they want, advance the story if they want, go PvP whenever they want, do Roleplaying with like minded or do housing, crafting, go exploring etc. in a huge world. For me this is a much bigger freedom, than being forced into a gamestyle I don't really appreciate (since many PvP-players lack of proper motivation in a role playing sense), when I leave a town or want to solely enjoy cooperative gameplay.

Cheers,
Andreas

P.S. There are quite a few successful and popular games out there with consensual PvP, like Dark Souls for example. You only have to fear attacks after turning into human form. There are areas for PvP, special PvP events, that are quite fun, good balancing (it's hard for everyone^^) and all your choices are integrated into the world of Dark Souls (through Alignments, Oaths, etc.)

 

Why do you keep ignoring our arguments about pvp != dueling ? I am tired of writing the same thing, oh my god. Ultima is not about Pvp because it is simply a RPG. And we want role freedom. It is not a gamestyle and we are not forcing it. Stop calling yourselves victims.

 

@Artariel Not clear how you won't have 'role freedom', unless the 'role' you want to play is one the griefs others.

It is thought that OPO mode will perhaps have some kind of always on PvP switch which would in effect give anyone who chooses that an experience close to pre-tram UO. Difference is, not everyone *has* to play that way - the devs have already been very clear that all PvP will be consensual.

So what is your complaint/request, again?

 

<_<;

The multiplayer experience that the dev team described seems fair enough; players can choose whether to play primarily PvE or PvP, and with or without their friends in either scenario.
There will be incentives attempting to entice players to play one way or the other in certain areas, and I've heard concerns from PvE players about having content unavailable to them if they don't wish to participate in PvP, but the dev team hasn't eluded anything like that at all.

This format is essentially the 'try to make everyone happy' solution to the problem.
I'm confident over the course of development and testing we and the dev team can find a good balance for a majority of us.

This isn't UO; and its not fair to expect the game to be any one particular gameplay style when it wasn't described outright in the pledge.
RG is going to make this a great story based game for all types of rpg players, and PvP'ers will almost never see pure PvE'ers.

Good enough for me. (´・ω・`)

 

Content removed for violation of forum rules

 

This thread is turning into a troll-fest. If I have to come back and moderate another post within this thread, it will be locked and unavailable for further discussion.

... And that didn't take long. Locked.
Move along, these aren't the droids your looking for.