Why did I love UO, and am 'meh' about SotA?

Yes i would.

It's called Premium Membership System. Optional, not required for play.
Gives you bonuses while it's active and maybe some rewards the longer it is active.
But it shouldn't give p2w stuff, atleast not much.

Many and myself included would deffo subscribe for this.

No idea why they didn't implement such an system yet.
Maybe @Lord British doesn't like such an system? no idea...

 

I sold my UO account for > $2000 USD. I sold my two DAoC accounts for just under $3000 USD. I sold my far less epic EQ account for like $500. Ive played a lot of other games where other people were selling accounts for values like that, though I hadnt invested enough time for my personal accounts to be worth anything significant.

I only ever paid the monthly subscription fees for those games.

I also made some serious cash selling pixels from within UO, from gold to rare deeds to weird stuff like a left rotated liver.

 

Ultimately, UO is not SotA, and SotA is not UO. Garriot has stressed this many times. Its just another RG game, with a few quirks that UO fans will find familiar. As said above, its not UO2. As said above, the OP is comparing early access SotA to the more finalized days of UO.

Agree in full!!!!

Indeed, I still have several active UO accounts on badass freeshards. I just did a 3 week vacation AFK and had to train my girlfriend how to refresh my houses lol. Not sure if any game will ever be better than UO so Im sure Ill always be playing it. If there were no freeshards, Id make my own.

Untrue. Even the EA client still has a thriving community (may they be digitally damned!). Many of the most popular (and therefore lamest ) freeshards have thousands of active players (usually < 5K). My freeshard is awesome and has about 700 active players. I play on another that has about 500, and yet another that is my personal fav but only a very small number of people play. There are freeshards with wacky rulesets, completely different maps, and different skill systems that I have no interest in, yet those have many thousands of players as well.

Now thats obviously untrue. Theyre very responsive to feedback, and have changed course based on feedback many times.

 

That's obviously true. Sorry.

 

Nostalgia's a hell of a drug. And I didn't mean to say UO sucked, I just mean it was sort of a happy accident. If it was released TODAY, with modern expectations, it would not fly. That doesn't mean people don't have fun still playing it.

 

Well I dont play it for nostalgia, I play UO cuz there hasnt been a better game than it released yet.

 

Correct. Even at the time, the graphics, for example, were average. The gameplay was alright. What really intrigued people was being in a genuine multiplayer world. We take that for granted now.

 

And that's why... being in something completely new... people put up with the lag and the server boundary exploits and the bugs and the slow patching and everything else that was horrible about the game for so long.
It was the First... and by default the First MMO for everyone that played it. That position will Always be special in every gamer's memory.
Even in Mine, and I came to loath UO with a passion that lives on to this day, almost 20 years later.

 

That is what a lot of people forget. UO broke boundaries... To get another UO feeling this game needs to break them as well. So far the selective MP failed at that and became the Ecology feature that UO had and was never really implemented in the later versions

Without giving the players more control over whats happening in Novia... I don't see that happening. That being said, game can still be fun - it is just not the ULTIMATE RPG without it

 

History has shown that if you give players control over what is happening in a game, what will happen is destruction. Everything that can be destroyed will be destroyed.
Crowfall is the first I know of to embrace this and design their game around it.

 

Give me a sand box where I can do what ever I want in my own corner idc what u guys do in yours.

 

I've got that, thanks... It's my Town.

The advantage I have in SotA that did not exist in UO is that in Shroud no one can come screw up me doing that I want.

 

Absolutely agree. I would even go farther and say the internet itself for the first 10 years was like this. People behind car wheels who think they are anonymous are like this.

Fact of human nature.

 

Theres alot of stuff we wont get I know that now. But there is stuff we do need a meaningful leveling system is the most important. First of all its way to easy to level stuff and the progression is meaningless even easier once you usderstand how much a deep xp pool power levels you.

A system like.

Fishing:
1-25 boots
25-50 fish,boots, chance of some stuff
50-60 all the above +better stuff (requires deep water fishing to gain further skill).
60-70 ^^ +pax ring (only way to get pax)
70-80 ^^x2
80-90 example sos bottles tmaps etc.
90-100 better versions of ^^
100-120 ^^x2

Progression based systems give people goals and rewards. But then again you can gm fishing in a few hours with a deep pool.

 

I dunno history showed the exact opposite IMHO. Take any modern sandbox. Things get built up and teared down if they are weak.
That makes things interesting and the game itself tells its story. Of course you needs limits, but right now Novia feels artificial and boring.

 

Really? You cite a prime example in the post to which I replied.

The Ecology feature in UO was abandoned because the players killed everything that moved. It all, this unique, innovative, interesting feature became wasted effort because of the players. Players are why we can't have nice things if you give them the freedom to destroy.

Fortunately, in Shroud, the baser instincts of many are limited by the environment and I need not worry about being pulled into their game on their whim, or having that over which I've toiled and invested destroyed unless I, through positive action, consent to such.

 

So you want a game without players I guess? You seem to miss the point.
Look around you... everything you see was build by people.
Games? There are tons... EVE is probably the game with the highest freedom and build player structures and economy.
Please name games where players destroyed everything and nothing got build up again?

You want a safe space in you own world. Singleplayer or a Themepark PVE MMO might be the thing for you.
But a Sandbox needs freedom to be successful. Your safe space isn't big enough for enough people to be part in it, and make the game a success.

The game mechanics need to be balanced though in a sandbox. Building up needs to be as rewarding as tearing things down is.
I personally think it is a good idea to grant players their safe spaces as long as they do not affect the overall gameplay for everyone...
That is what happened in this game - but luckily it is changing.

You NEVER EVER have to compete with others here, which is fine - but don't expect to have the same outcome as others have.

I feel Star Wars Galaxies had it right, with consent PVP and a living RP community. PVP and the consent system was nicely woven into the lore,
and the whole world did not feel filled with artificial boundaries. Right now SotA desperately lacks the lore and the mechanics that put all pieces together.
I am having more fun than before in this game, but still just too many things are lacking (influence of guilds, guildwar, virtue - anti virtue etc) to make
it a true sandbox virtual world ALL kind of players can live in.

 

I had the same experience with Morrowind. When Oblivion came out, I complained to the kids (who liked it) about it being a dumbed-down, less immersive, overly simplified, sequel. When Skyrim (which the kids love) came out, I said the same thing. Out of frustration over it, I went ahead and loaded up Morrowind, some 15 years later. I couldn't believe that I had ever had the patience to work with those mechanics! I was only able to play for a few minutes before deciding it took waay too much patience, and before finding out that the outdated graphics just didn't do it for me anymore. dangit.

 

Angry much, Vallo?

We obviously want different things... This is neither good nor bad, it simply is. I also don't begrudge you those things you list (Which are being implemented) that you feel the game needs so long as I have the freedom to not participate.

I don't pretend to know whether some feature, or lack thereof will be that which makes or breaks Shroud of the Avatar. All I know is that Shroud of the Avatar and that which it was, is, and is in the process of becoming is something I liked enough and felt confident enough would remain so to have invested many thousands of dollars to support.

I like what I have, and like what is coming, and I trust the team to know better than I what degree of freedom is required by the players to make a healthy game. They are, after all, the team that created a game with a vast amount of freedom, and were then forced to split it in twain to keep those that reveled in that freedom from victimizing those that didn't because the well being of the title was threatened.

 

Not at all.
Just saying forcing people into NOT PVPing WITH EACH OTHER is as bad as FORCING PEOPLE TO PVP.
I want exactly that YOU and I can play in this game. That's why I backed it tbh.
UO and SWG had all kind of players in it... nowadays the MMOs tend to split the people into PVE and PVP... casual or competitive etc...
I am against all that.
It's just all sides have to compromise for that to happen.