We're being discouraged from interacting with each other in multiplayer

Have you seen humans today in this day and age? Are you new to life? Phone = social interaction, most of the people such as myself who know what Pre trammal is, Knows what human interaction is, If you're standing in star bucks or (where ever) and some human comes up and starts talking about how the sticker on his hat is awesome, you dont give a **** about that, same thing in this game, UO and this game is a sand box make it whatever you want. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COME HANG OUT WITH YOU AND STICK AROUND? give them a reason too, and make sure its not dull, boring, mundain, or dangerous to the point where people lose stuff, UNLESS they gain stuff then its ok.. But all I see here is you wanting this society where people care, make them care, stop sitting around hoping they care. USE YOUR IMAGINATION <_------- THIS WILL MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY WITH YOU. Who ever on the corner of owls peddler row, lazaurs long, I love role playing with that guy, seen his shack grow up when he was just sitting out there on a throne and some skeves. Point is, this game is what you make it, so if you're a boring town owner with a borning tavern ... GUESS WHAT?

~Michael USaj

 

I want the game to be fun and to last for many years. If I just wanted a few people to hang out with I think I could manage that.

I'm looking at this problem on more of a macro level.

 

Friend only online already works Rav

 

I too am worried about this.

I don't see many players, on one hand it doesn't concern me because I'm looking for resources (especially ore nodes). On the other hand, I haven't met up with ANYONE who happened to be killing the same camps as me for a potential to party and go somewhere else.

 

SPO itself "segments" the community in every meaningful sense ... AND it inflates the effective currency to boot. It's a dumb idea. Can't believe it's made it this far, honestly.

I'd get rid of SPO all together. At the very least I'd separate the economies of the two completely.

I'd also get rid of the entire idea of a single player version of the game if it were up to me. A game that tries to do too many things typically does them all poorly. This will absolutely be the case if the pipe dream of the current setup is maintained. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Remember this post in a few years.

 

This is a misquote. It's actual quote is "Jack of all trades, master of one." In any case.. SPO isn't going anywhere. Shroud was always meant to be playable in single player from the moment of its conception. I for one am not prepared to judge the final product based on the current state. Rather than proclaiming how bad it's going to be.. why not instead help to make sure it doesn't come to that with constructive feedback?

 

It is not a "misquote."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none

It is a euphemism or simple expression. The etiology is as you intend to indicate. That is not however, the expression. The expression is indeed: "jack of all trades, master of none."

""Jack of all trades, master of none" is a figure of speech used in reference to a person that is competent with many skills, but spends too much time learning each new skill that he/she can not become an expert in any particular one."

And I stand firmly by my opinion on the matter. I have given the constructive, critical feedback you suggest in the very post you respond to. That's the only way to "fix" this problem in my opinion. There's no fixing a bad idea, aside from changing the idea.

 

It is a misquote.. based on a typo. Not everything on wikis is true or accurate.

 

Then link to a source please, as I've been kind enough to do. Here are a few more that should quiet your mind:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none#Etymology
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/jack+of+all+trades+is+a+master+of+none
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jack-of-all-trades.html

Not a "misquote" at all. Give me at least one source for your position, aside from yourself.

And if metaphor is lost on you, I'll make it simple:

A game that tries to do this many things is going to suck at all of them.

Get it?

 

not to enter into the heated discussion with purpose, but the original is...

Jack of all trades, master of none,
but ofttimes better than a master of one.

 

Correct. As all of those links I posted explain.

 

Your meaning was never in question.. I'm simply pointing out a common misquote of Ban Franklin.

 

I didn't quote Ben Franklin. I didn't quote anyone. I correctly used an extremely common expression and you threw an inaccurate red herring out there that it was a "misquote."

The point is the same. In my view SPO and single player itself, should be scrapped. I realize you disagree. That's OK.

 

It is never the less a very common misquote attributed to him whether you realized it or not. Now you do and that was the point. Nothing more.

 

@redfish

This made me think of your old forum avatar. Not saying you weren't accurate or anything, either lol

 

Ya ... that makes sense.
Sounds like you made a clearly erroneous assumption and demand that everyone else likewise share your error. I'll pass. There was no quote. You were just wrong. Now stop derailing the thread.

 

The option for single player is essential in any functional RPG, and this is first and foremost a role playing game. One where you play the role of an avatar, and are given various quests to pursue that are relevant to a solid, coherent story line.

The fact that you can also play multiplayer is a great addition, but it should not interfere with the ability of the player to follow the story line.

Yes, there are tensions between the two modes of play - Star Citizen solved that by creating a separate game called Squadron 42 for the main story line. On completion of Squadron 42 the player is discharged from the military and is free to enter the multiplayer universe, which has no single player option.

Here the two modes are integrated from the start, and that is not going to change. So, rather than propose "solutions" that have no chance of being implemented, it would be better to come up with targeted suggestions to help ease any negative impacts that the single/multi duality may have on specific chosen play styles - rather than wield a big, blunt hammer trying to smash single/multi economic interaction or even trying to eliminate an entire mode of play.

 

If I over reacted I apologize.. but if you want the an issue dropped.. don't drag it out yourself.

 

That sounds so incredibly smart on their part.

 

You did not overreact. You:

(1) ignored the topic of the thread in every meaningful way
(2) threw out a red herring
(3) did so based on a mistaken assumption
(4) bull-headedly stuck to your guns while refusing to support your error with citation.

Which is fine I guess. But don't make it out to be any mistake of mine. I make my share. I didn't make one here.