Uo spiritiual successor

Well Brass hit it on the head. I was (and still am, playing regularly) a huge UO fan. What is it, that makes me keep playing a 20 year old game and enjoying it.

For me, there were lots of positive potential for SOTA, it isnt finished, it has room for improvement etc. Sadly it lacks all the things I enjoy about MMOs.
- The pvp system is terrible and pointless (im not even a good pvper, but i miss that thrill of being hunted, or hunting others).
- There is no real point to anything, the actual impact you have, or reward is negligible and the same, regardless.
- Housing is one of my biggest bugbears, I bought at Lord level because I wanted a house, but I understood in game that you could craft anything you can buy, so had visions of one day making my own castle. Not unless you pay RL cash my friend.
- Experience. This stops me from coming back. What is the point in trying to compete with someone who has played daily and has millions of xp - especially more relevant for those who pvp. Come launch day, this will massively put a lot of people off. UO for example had a system cap on the total skillpoints you could use to even out the playing field (7x GM, then 5x120 chars etc).
- The game seems to lack any content really, other than the grind or attending player run dance fests.
- I (personally) really detest the whole combat system (from decks to targeting).


I know this is Beta, thats why i hung in so long. But I have to face facts, it is in a permanent state now, that to me indicates nothing significant will change. Each telethon, merger, patch etc just says that the focus seems to be on meaningless cosmetic items and in grabbing money from the player base. I know its a different team working on the cosmetic items, but hey, use that budget to hire another programmer in a different area - they dont because they need to generate more income, and thats what I most dislike about this game; for me, the perception is that Portal didnt expect the telethons and fundraising to be as effective as it is, when they saw the huge responses, they got waylaid into generating that income and lost their path on game design.

I just dont see any tangible improvement in SOTA over the last few years - sure the graphics and mechanics are improving, but the gameplay is lacking. I hung on hoping and hoping, but I have to face the fact and admit this isnt the game I hoped for (or was even described in the original kickstarter - which alluded to UO a lot more), and likely wont be, so im bowing out now. I hope i come back in 2 years time and see a really successful game as the community has invested a lot and if the game fails, its the backers that will suffer.

 

You are absolutely correct on all aspects, well said. To the Dev team, this isn't a way of talking trash, this is the players that played UO for soooo long hoping for a more promising concept. The game literally feels like a single player ultima series, but lacking any kind of serious judgement or affects on your character.

Most of us here that are disappointed are wanting more risk/reward, close to how UO is to be perfectly honest. Currently it seems like a house decorating simulator with a auto attack system, little to no PVP whatsoever. On top of that if anyone mentions anything about a more hardcore style of playing with higher risk, you get surrounded by blue players and raged at. I mean there is literally a offline mode, a friend mode for them to play and if they want to be part of the mmo there is barely any risk involved at all.

This game system is going to need a extreme make over to be even considered from the same people as ultima online, no offense intended. Please consider this and look at how successful of a game you made that literally made MMO history, SotA is farrrrr from it and it's not because of being in beta. It's because of the systems in place your building your entire game off of. We need a criminal system, a better flagging system, a better loot system, a actual point to do things (I am not a player that follows a story), less focus on cosmetics and focus attention on PvP, a better combat system (auto attack is lame) the toggled attack is not reasonable to do anything else... Everyone uses auto attack unless your a pure melee. In result of this, I can only grind mindlessly for a few hours before I'm falling asleep.. That's being honest. I am literally one of the biggest grinding neck beards in MMOs, if I'm falling asleep I can only imagine how others feel.

TLDR. I want this game to rethink the systems put in place, make more of a point of putting in endless hours. Focus on PVP less cosmetics. Put in a real criminal system (UO has a perfect one, use it), players want more open world not zoning for ages every time you want to do anything. People would invest more money into the game if they knew the direction of the game is worth it, including me(right now it's really the house decorators and fan base from UO, honestly not the product currently)

Again no offense intended, just something you massively need to consider. In the current direction of the game I'd rather play something else, even Ultima Online emulators, Mortal Online, many others... I hope this changes, you guys have a awesome team and insane funding.

 

wasnt UO part of the Ultima series??? Just a better mmorpg version of it??? The ultima Series were good for thier time but times have changed and there is no excellent MMORPG game out there at the moment, you would think a good business would capitalize on that???? You would think!

If it was my business id make the best MMORPG out there, not only to claim fame on it but also make lots and lots of money in the process In my opinion everything thus far seems so backward ass at the moment with this game, hopefully by some miracle this game will keep me playing (as UO) did (not Ultima) There were many better games out there besides Ultima in those days, i cant list them all right off the bat but Ultima was the least favorite of the games i did play back then.

 

1. UO was NOT the better version of Ultima. It was different.

2. The Ultima-series before UO still is one of the best single player RPG series.

3. If you want to make lots of money in our times you don't do a MMORPG. Why? There are way too many MMORPGs on the market and this market is declining. Even WOW constantly loses players.

4. If you want to make lots of money you develop a MOBA, a hero-shooter like Overwatch or a card game like Hearthstone. Even Valve is now developing one. Or you do a survival online RPG like Conan Exiles or Dark & Light. Those player numbers are insane - and those are still Early Access games.

The high times of MMORPGs are over. Even single-player RPGs like The Witcher 3 or Skyrim sell much more copies than modern MMORPGs.

 

Food for thought.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017...-mass-effect-andromeda-single-player-content/

 

i have to disagree with you the Ultima series suck, unless your into those type of games (single player) They would not be first choice for me over all the other RPG single player games out there. So ill have to disagree with you on the Ultima statement, its not really that good.

 

Unfortunately what they tried to do with ME:A didn't work. Fans expected something different. SP-fans expected more.
But I fear that EA will come to the wrong conclusions and make ME into a multi-player series instead of trying to create a great SP RPG again.

The multi-player market has one big disadvantage: you have a finite amount of players and everyone wants to bind them to their game. But this leads to a fractured player base playing many different games. The amount of games increases but the amount of players basically stays the same. So in the end you get many multi-player games with few gamers - with the exception a few big players like Overwatch or League of Legends. Wanting to compete in this market is extremely hard if you want to be successful and not end as a niche game.

 

Unlike the Ultima series, that I've never played, I did play Mass Effect when it first came out. I thought it was boring and stupid. Really much to do about nothing. Sure it looked good and it had voice acting, but the story (to me) was poor, and the game itself was nothing special. Mostly it suffered from the same problems that I feel other single player games like Skyrim suffer from, the world's are dead inside.

I don't have this reaction to all single player games. Wasteland II and Pillars of Eternity are good examples of games where I don't feel like the world is dead. But I never feel this way in multiplayer games, even ones with low populations. So long as there are a few hundred people around, the world's feel alive.

Actually there's a finite number of players for all games. The more games that are created the more competition there is. Yes, the super popular Overwatch, Wow, LoL types may dominate for a short period of time, but it's a cycle just like any other form of entertainment (radio, tv, internet, etc...)

As for being a niche game, I'm not sure that means you will be commercially unsuccessful. I've never played WoW, Overwatch, or LoL and they're obviously doing just fine without my money. I put just $25 into Wasteland II and it's a resounding success. My point is that it's all relative. If for example there were only 10 companies of varying size in one town but all of them made enough money to pay their bills, pay their workforce, and stay in business, it would be hard to say that any of those businesses were unsuccessful simply because one of those companies was worth $100 billion more than the other 9 combined.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your overall thoughts on PvP but I will comment on that particular quote:

Having players on the same "level" is one of the core concepts of competitive gaming. That's why arcade first person shooters and real-time strategy games are so popular in competitive gaming. Because you have access to the same tools while you're fighting.

So no, requesting that player level and/or player output are even is not strictly a casual thing. As a matter of fact, one could argue that being able to circumvent the skill gap between players by out-levelling the other is more casual-friendly than the "hardcore" players like to believe.

How is this any different from the hundreds of single-player games that cater to a specific audience?

Your argument doesn't hold up and just hates on multi-player for the sake of hating multi-player.

 

Your saying the same tools aren't available unless your given them for free basically. In a fps with no character development, sure that makes sense..... But this isn't a version of call of duty, at least I thought? With that same level/skill being implemented its basically making it medieval call of duty. So I'm sorry to disagree but it is for casuals/role players that don't want to develop a character with those pvp skills already offered in game, also putting work into leveling the character.

Your argument would work if there was unobtainable skills by maxing other paths...but there is no cap on anything. It's just work involved in getting to that point. The whole issue with this concept is for people like me and others there literally is no point in skilling up pvp trees, all you have to do is min/max pve farming. I'm not a fan at all of not being to show what your work put into a character just to make people feel equal. That's kinda the point of putting effort into being competitive is the hard work? This is going to have a massive downfalls of short lived interest of pvp when people don't feel like there is no point to the development, people will log out.

Perfect example, I enjoy playing a fps shooter, but I lose interest after a hour. There is nothing to do except improve your k/d ratio ranking. Lacking serious depth to keep people engaged.

I could refer to certain government paths of the world but would probably get moderated by the forum gate keeper.

 

One of the many problems with this game is that it is a Multiplayer game designed like a single player one. example everyone can be every and anything. Makes sense in a single player environment but not in a multiplayer one.

 

I agree. Feels like single player trying to decide if it wants to be mmo lol.

It's the result of being able to change decks and no skill caps honestly. Along with the traveling system and endless zoning. Putting all that into a horrible pvp criminal system makes literally no value to competition.

Take away the skill decks system or revamp it, put in caps for skills (7x gm or similar to UO). Make bigger zones to minimize load times I would go as far as make each island one big zone, combine 4-6 zones currently into one to make a open world feeling. Apply the criminal system in UO with some tweaks for virtue, make pvp conflict loot rewards worth it, doesn't need to be full loot but something very close (many options for this).... Mix your story lines and connect the content within..crafters cant be fighters jack of all trades, sure make everyone able to gather but this ruins the entire econmy with everyone able to do everything(no specialization without caps, no roles made).

Do this and you have the stepping stones for a great mmo game.

Or leave it how it is and lose the entire pvp crowd. It will happen, mark my words.

 

Just as sure as you will keep complaining about Darkmoon no-matter how many times you feel you must restate it.

 

No, I'm saying that requesting that each combatant be on even footing is not inherently a casual thing but, instead, a very competitive one. That's when player skill shine the most.

How you keep/lose interest in FPS is irrelevant.

Just to be clear, I too don't wish the PvP to be "evened out" or capped. The thing is, I don't associate this attitude as a casual-vs-hardcore thing.

 

Nothing says people can't be even, people have same opportunity as others as they are playing the same game, same items, same abilities, same spells, same exp (I do prefer a capped 7x gm 120x5 etc build to create certain roles and not a jack of all trades ruining the economy). What it all comes down to is putting time into the game. I don't like the idea that someone with zero hrs spent can be on the same level/skills as me when I put thousands of hours invested to be competitive.

You don't wish for pvp to be evened out though you want everyone to be even skills and level with zero work invested? Makes no sense. Your wanting a arena basically for casuals with little to no time to compete with others that spend endless hours for progression.

I too want a very competitive pvp atmosphere, but giving skills that people didn't earn, along with people just having to min/max pve skills is something I don't agree with. There is no point in investing time in pvp skills/schools with this being put in. Also provides the no depth feeling that occurs in fps, that's the main difference in mmorpgs is character progression, without this your basically playing a fps.

 

In the past I have suggested a pvp skill tree of its own. This tree would be forced into play whenever you are flagged for pvp. One could impose a skill/stat/level cap on this tree separate from the other pve trees. One could incorporate the crafting trees into this pvp tree as one to make it even better, as you would have to decide between, for example, the foraging skill and a pvp skill. This would not affect the pve player base and would be a great way for crafters to have to rely on protection in pvp areas. I would love to see something like this.

 

This is why stock car racing is more interesting, it's 100% about driving skill and not $$$. Just keep Blood Bay and the other major PvP areas as is but have other areas set to leveled PvP.

Let the players decide for themselves what kind of PvP they want.

 

As you will like all of his post. Doesn't matter what. You are a brave follower.

 

Re criminal justice system - there should be 2 sides to it. On one side you have law & order and on the other you have the criminal underworld which must surely exist in Novia (even today )

Your avatar may be a professional thief (with a bounty on your head) but even thieves have to abide by a code of conduct imposed by the thieves guild or council. This should be supported by ingame anti-virtue dynamics which aren't necessarily black and white. For example, a thief can still be courageous and compassionate and believe that "honor among thieves" is something to aspire to.

This would make it possible for some interesting interplay between the official and unofficial (ie underworld) justice systems.

You could be, for example, a virtuous paladin but still have an underworld bounty on your head due to the fact that you've interfered one too many times with the other side's criminal dealings. Whichever side you're on, there should be consequences.

As it is, everything is too black and white - grey areas should exist as well. Ambiguity is much more interesting and it sells.

 

Sure but a single-player game normally isn't played for months or years. Those players look for other games when they finished one. This was how it has been up until the point when MMOs came up. MMORPGs disrupted the market when they came up, basically creating a new type of player - those who wanted to spend as much time playing one game. You could see this very good with WoW. When WoW was released the gaming market nearly collapsed because many players didn't buy new games anymore. They spend months in WoW.
This "new" type of player brings the problem with him I mentioned earlier: Many companies fighting over this finite amount of players with many, many new games. But if everyone wants to bind as many players as possible to their game, there will be games that won't have enough players to sustain their services.

And of course success is relative. A small game can be lucrative for the developers with just a small amount of players. But MMORPGs need many players for the game to work. They are Massively Multiplayer games, it even is in the name. Look at SotA. The player driven economy will only work really well if many players participate in it. The same for PvP...