I really think people are delusional when they say trammel ruined UO. If you gathered all the PK players and put them into a new game with portals and you have the freedom to choose whenever you want to go between full PK areas ( Like bucs den in UO etc ) with great rewards ( a different variety of items could be obtained there, not nessecarily 2x better than PvE area items but different types as to not kill the PvE population but encourage them to explore the PK worlds and different content and full PvE areas aswell. ) I don't see how you could not enjoy it. PvP should in a way be consensual, at the same time it should also have a openess and realness to it. And I think UO in one form or another, captured that openess and realness quite well.

I really think more games should be created with this kind of idea, you really don't see it often enough, nothing even comes close to replicating UO in that aspect.

I really believe it wasn't trammel that killed UO, That game still could have been a PvPers dream, It was the dying interest of PvPers playing UO that killed the PvP scene. It was genius how they split the world into two while not creating a ""cheese"" effect and still having full corpse loot, unlike WoWs battlegrounds which makes the game feel not like a world but more like a ""game"" and I use the word game in It's bad sense, mmorpgs hold something special, and that is it's ability to have a world that while incorporating itself with the behaviours that make games fun yet plays itself as a serious play.

Trammel only ruined UO for the gankers and newbie killers. I knew many people who enjoyed both tram and fel. The guild I was with travelled between the two facets regularily. We often did T-hunting on both sides.I and many of my friends enjoyed being able to go from one side to the other. There was still alot of fun to be had on both sides. I would like to see another game to do the same someday. Rather than the PvP bein the endgame, players could do all the same in either PvP or PvE environment.

Originally posted by talismen351

Trammel only ruined UO for the gankers and newbie killers. I knew many people who enjoyed both tram and fel. The guild I was with travelled between the two facets regularily. We often did T-hunting on both sides.I and many of my friends enjoyed being able to go from one side to the other. There was still alot of fun to be had on both sides. I would like to see another game to do the same someday. Rather than the PvP bein the endgame, players could do all the same in either PvP or PvE environment.

I see I'm not alone on this :)

Originally posted by talismen351

Trammel only ruined UO for the gankers and newbie killers. I knew many people who enjoyed both tram and fel.

I love it when people talk in absolutes.  Maybe Trammel did not ruin the game for you, but it did for me and I never killed 1 innocent person during the 7 years my account was active.  I never pked anyone.  I was 110% anti-pk the entire time I played UO.

As far as your second comment.  I knew many people who did not enjoy trammel and did not enjoy fellucia after the split because it was a ghost town were only the reds hung out.  It wasn't the same game any more.

My guild alliance (all anti-pk players) had over 200 people that dwindled to about 10 people over the course of the first year after Trammel was released.

So I'm sorry, your statement of "Trammel only ruined UO for the gankers and newbie killers" is your own opinion, not a fact.

Originally posted by NeverLand7

Originally posted by talismen351

Trammel only ruined UO for the gankers and newbie killers. I knew many people who enjoyed both tram and fel. The guild I was with travelled between the two facets regularily. We often did T-hunting on both sides.I and many of my friends enjoyed being able to go from one side to the other. There was still alot of fun to be had on both sides. I would like to see another game to do the same someday. Rather than the PvP bein the endgame, players could do all the same in either PvP or PvE environment.

I see I'm not alone on this :)

Sounds good to me, as well.

You may not be alone, but there are certainly plenty of us who don't agree.

As soon as you make PvP optional, you take the risk factor and danger out of the game. The less prepared players are no longer penalized because they can just stay in candyland forever. It is in no way realistic to allow players to make that choice and it takes away from the immersion of the game.

Whether or not you are a PK is irrelevant... it is the risk that makes the game exciting. Once Trammel was added to UO, you very rarely saw many players in the more dangerous areas because they suddenly had a choice. I personally lost all interest in the game at that point.

UO was great when it was dangerous everywhere because every single thing you did was important to your character's survival. The allies you made, the areas you hunted, your actions around others... those things either kept you alive or killed you. The game was significantly dumbed down when they made PvP optional.

Originally posted by Anubisan

You may not be alone, but there are certainly plenty of us who don't agree.

As soon as you make PvP optional, you take the risk factor and danger out of the game. The less prepared players are no longer penalized because they can just stay in candyland forever. It is in no way realistic to allow players to make that choice and it takes away from the immersion of the game.

Whether or not you are a PK is irrelevant... it is the risk that makes the game exciting. Once Trammel was added to UO, you very rarely saw many players in the more dangerous areas because they suddenly had a choice. I personally lost all interest in the game at that point.

UO was great when it was dangerous everywhere because every single thing you did was important to your character's survival. The allies you made, the areas you hunted, your actions around others... those things either kept you alive or killed you. The game was significantly dumbed down when they made PvP optional.

Well, taking the risks and danger out of the game is the right thing to do because humans are risk averse. Just look at the games with full PK loot. What happen? No one wears their best stuff. Everyone is timid like a mouse.

Look at what happen in a low risk game like WOW. Everyone wear their best stuff. Everyone tries everything. No one is shy from going to the battlegrounds or WG. More fun, less restriction.

I just don't get why devs don't open up servers of all types. Why not have a PvE, PvP, PvP Full Loot, PvP Permadeath, and RP servers for every game?

Originally posted by skeaser

I just don't get why devs don't open up servers of all types. Why not have a PvE, PvP, PvP Full Loot, PvP Permadeath, and RP servers for every game?

Because each type of server is fundamentally a diiferent play experience and requires unique tailoring of the game mechanics to functiuon properly. No company is going to maintain four code bases for what amounts to four completely different games with the same name and graphics.

Felluca failed in UO because there's no reward for being a punching bag. Trammel succeded because people will almost always trade freedom for security. You can't  make that fundamental a change in a game without considering what it will do to the player dymnamics. Outside forces and bad patches killed the game itself.

Originally posted by skeaser

I just don't get why devs don't open up servers of all types. Why not have a PvE, PvP, PvP Full Loot, PvP Permadeath, and RP servers for every game?

Because a game has to be designed from the ground up knowing exactly what it's going to be.  Just the fact that you posted this shows me you have no idea how this would actually affect the game.

Just for an example lets take WoW.  Lets say they added a full loot, permadeath server.  Would anyone actually play on it?  No.  Because dying is part of the game.  It's built into the foundation. Simply adding this server to WoW would not make it enjoyable.

Now.  If someone designed a game from the ground up with permadeath in mind they would do things differently to make sure the game is fun.  For one players would be extremely hard to kill or the penalty for murder would be as harsh/harsher than reality if you are caught.  There would be a lot of design decisions that would go into making the game BECAUSE it's going to have permadeath.

Same thing for full loot.  UO for example had full loot and even though it was a pain in the butt to reequip yourself it was not the end of the world and did not take more than 20-30 minutes to get the gear back you lost.  Someone else posted that people do not use the best gear because they will lose it.  In UO everyone I knew either used GM or magical gear.  Really powerful magical equipment was rare and rarely seen on the battlefield, which is how it should be in my opinion. 

UO was designed to be a full loot game.  Because of this you prepared yourself and used the best gear you could afford, which in most people's case was GM made gear.  Adding a full loot server to WoW would not work because the game is not designed for that type of gameplay.

Also the only new-ish MMO that has full loot and open PvP is Darkfall and it seems to be doing ok so far even though it's a horribly broken shell of a game.  This to me shows that there is a market for such a game when something as awful as Darkfall can get enough subscribers to stay afloat.

If a full loot/PvP game that is as good or better designed than UO pre-trammel comes out I guarantee it will do well.  But that's a big IF

I never got the chance to play UO pre-trammel, but I have played a few MMOs on pvp servers with required PvP. Being so, I'd have to say it's better to keep PvP optional, sometimes you just don't want to deal with it or feel like relaxing and doing something a little mindless and it's just a big pain in the ass when someone griefs you when you're in one of these modes. I think there should be risk vs reward involved though to lure people into PvP areas. You have a chance of getting better gear than you could get anywhere else, but you'd also have a chance of getting ganked and losing everything. In these areas, it should be next to impossible to just wander in naked and get good rewards. If that wasn't possible, naked players should lose skill or xp on death... there just has to be some sort of risk for the better rewards.

In some cases being able to kill someone at any time is a nice option but the inconveniences of always having to watch your back or PvPing when you're not really in the mood for it outwiegh the benefits of being able to kill anyone, anytime.

Originally posted by Dameonk

Originally posted by skeaser

I just don't get why devs don't open up servers of all types. Why not have a PvE, PvP, PvP Full Loot, PvP Permadeath, and RP servers for every game?

 

Because a game has to be designed from the ground up knowing exactly what it's going to be.  Just the fact that you posted this shows me you have no idea how this would actually affect the game.

Just for an example lets take WoW.  Lets say they added a full loot, permadeath server.  Would anyone actually play on it?  No.  Because dying is part of the game.  It's built into the foundation. Simply adding this server to WoW would not make it enjoyable.

Now.  If someone designed a game from the ground up with permadeath in mind they would do things differently to make sure the game is fun.  For one players would be extremely hard to kill or the penalty for murder would be as harsh/harsher than reality if you are caught.  There would be a lot of design decisions that would go into making the game BECAUSE it's going to have permadeath.

Same thing for full loot.  UO for example had full loot and even though it was a pain in the butt to reequip yourself it was not the end of the world and did not take more than 20-30 minutes to get the gear back you lost.  Someone else posted that people do not use the best gear because they will lose it.  In UO everyone I knew either used GM or magical gear.  Really powerful magical equipment was rare and rarely seen on the battlefield, which is how it should be in my opinion. 

UO was designed to be a full loot game.  Because of this you prepared yourself and used the best gear you could afford, which in most people's case was GM made gear.  Adding a full loot server to WoW would not work because the game is not designed for that type of gameplay.

Also the only new-ish MMO that has full loot and open PvP is Darkfall and it seems to be doing ok so far even though it's a horribly broken shell of a game.  This to me shows that there is a market for such a game when something as awful as Darkfall can get enough subscribers to stay afloat.

If a full loot/PvP game that is as good or better designed than UO pre-trammel comes out I guarantee it will do well.  But that's a big IF

I do understand how this would affect the game. All I'm saying, for example, is that some AoC players have asked for a full loot server, why not give them one?

DDO has permadeath guilds who delete their character once they die, why not give these guys a permadeath server?

I've seen WoW players ask for full loot servers, why not?

If you appeal to a broader spectrum you will increase your base, no?

If they thought enough people would really use it, and enjoy it, and keep using it, then they would do it.

It really just comes down to what they believe would be profitable.

Originally posted by madeux

If they thought enough people would really use it, and enjoy it, and keep using it, then they would do it.

It really just comes down to what they believe would be profitable.

I don't see how it would cost them much to add full loot rules to a server. If people ask for it, why not give it?

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by madeux

If they thought enough people would really use it, and enjoy it, and keep using it, then they would do it.

It really just comes down to what they believe would be profitable.

 

I don't see how it would cost them much to add full loot rules to a server. If people ask for it, why not give it?

Probably because it would require a whole other set of code, dev time, etc...

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by madeux

If they thought enough people would really use it, and enjoy it, and keep using it, then they would do it.

It really just comes down to what they believe would be profitable.

 

I don't see how it would cost them much to add full loot rules to a server. If people ask for it, why not give it?

Because it takes time to program it.  To test it.  To administer it.  It takes a server and bandwidth to run it.

And when they go through all of the cost, both in time and money, and everyone jumps on to try it, and a few weeks later decides its not really that fun... it was all for nothing.

Originally posted by jusomdude

I never got the chance to play UO pre-trammel, but I have played a few MMOs on pvp servers with required PvP.

I did since beta. It was horrible and no fun. Ganging, mindless mining and so no.

I jumed ship the day EQ started its beta.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Anubisan

You may not be alone, but there are certainly plenty of us who don't agree.

As soon as you make PvP optional, you take the risk factor and danger out of the game. The less prepared players are no longer penalized because they can just stay in candyland forever. It is in no way realistic to allow players to make that choice and it takes away from the immersion of the game.

Whether or not you are a PK is irrelevant... it is the risk that makes the game exciting. Once Trammel was added to UO, you very rarely saw many players in the more dangerous areas because they suddenly had a choice. I personally lost all interest in the game at that point.

UO was great when it was dangerous everywhere because every single thing you did was important to your character's survival. The allies you made, the areas you hunted, your actions around others... those things either kept you alive or killed you. The game was significantly dumbed down when they made PvP optional.

 

Well, taking the risks and danger out of the game is the right thing to do because humans are risk averse. Just look at the games with full PK loot. What happen? No one wears their best stuff. Everyone is timid like a mouse.

Look at what happen in a low risk game like WOW. Everyone wear their best stuff. Everyone tries everything. No one is shy from going to the battlegrounds or WG. More fun, less restriction.

 

 

This is soooo wrong. Titans in EVE take like what- a year to build? People fly and lose those all the time. Not everyone in real life is a coward; same goes for virtual worlds. Don't make assumptions please; play the type of game style first before you criticize.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by skeaser

I just don't get why devs don't open up servers of all types. Why not have a PvE, PvP, PvP Full Loot, PvP Permadeath, and RP servers for every game?

 

Because each type of server is fundamentally a diiferent play experience and requires unique tailoring of the game mechanics to functiuon properly. No company is going to maintain four code bases for what amounts to four completely different games with the same name and graphics.

Felluca failed in UO because there's no reward for being a punching bag. Trammel succeded because people will almost always trade freedom for security. You can't  make that fundamental a change in a game without considering what it will do to the player dymnamics. Outside forces and bad patches killed the game itself.

I never even played this game but was reading through this thread out of boredom and this statement humored me greatly :)

Maybe if you were Lincolns advisor slavery would have lasted a little longer. 

Originally posted by Anubisan

You may not be alone, but there are certainly plenty of us who don't agree.

As soon as you make PvP optional, you take the risk factor and danger out of the game. The less prepared players are no longer penalized because they can just stay in candyland forever. It is in no way realistic to allow players to make that choice and it takes away from the immersion of the game.

Whether or not you are a PK is irrelevant... it is the risk that makes the game exciting. Once Trammel was added to UO, you very rarely saw many players in the more dangerous areas because they suddenly had a choice. I personally lost all interest in the game at that point.

UO was great when it was dangerous everywhere because every single thing you did was important to your character's survival. The allies you made, the areas you hunted, your actions around others... those things either kept you alive or killed you. The game was significantly dumbed down when they made PvP optional.

It is you bunch that killed the game and almost all pvp games.

You need to kill someone to feel better, so the others need to be readily available for you to kill.  How selfish, how inconsiderate.  What do you expect?

During the early days when UO is the only game, ppl have no choice, so you think you have a game going and people like to be killed by you.  Once EQ comes out, these people flees.  Your ghost town is a ghost town b/c of your own inconsiderate selfishness.  Look at what you said, you do not allow people to have choices, that about tells the world you are not worthy as a company, in game or real life.

Your immersion works on stopping ppl from having their own choices.  In UO.  So?  People left for EQ.  I am in UO all those days, I see the meaningless ganking, self proclaimed heroes, who gank and pretend to be right.  I left the guild when most that exercise reason left the game or just go chatting.  When EQ comes, none of us hesitated.  So you ask why UO died.  Trammel?  or your kind?

Do we hate PvP?  No.  When DAoC comes out, we played till ToA.  EQ, UO ... never again.