Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Guild Wars 2 | Elder Scrolls Online | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,749 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,296,257
Portalarium Inc | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:Portalarium Inc
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info? Let us know!

Shroud of the Avatar Forum » General Discussion » If it doesn't have player looting and stealing, the game will fail.

15 Pages First « 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 » Search
295 posts found
  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/03/13 10:47:02 AM#261
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by The1ceQueen

Originally posted by Holophonist Implemented Trammel boosted subs for about a year. After that the game entered a 6 - 7 year downward spiral that was only temporarily halted after they released AOS, which they probably did because they were bleeding subs after Trammel.
That always happens when a game starts to age, newer Mmo's come out, take subscribers, people move on to the next best thing. Just the way it is.
May 2000 Trammel releases, UO has just under 150k players. Early 2003, UO has just over 200k players. Mid 2003, UO peaks at 250k players, this is just after the release of AoS. 2003 to Present - UO subscribers decline, private servers are created, etc. This can be attributed to many things, including people just not finding anything new in the game, but SWG is probably the main culprit since it offered an alternative to UO. Trammel boosted subs steadily for almost three years. AoS boosted subs for a very short period of time, but it wasn't enough. UO could not compete in a market where games had both full 3D graphics, well known IPs and accommodated players who weren't interested in player killing, looting or thievery. Not to mention UO was just getting old. If the style of PvP is a factor in a game's success, then accommodating players who are interested in PvE and instanced PvP is much more of sales draw over world PvP meaning SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery. If the style of PvP is less of a factor than the game's developer or IP, then SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery; they need a good developer and a decent IP. ** Sources: MMODATA.net Ultima Online Wikipedia Page  
Players used to the old skillsystem and features tried AoS out for some months, i did, and then we left the game in drowes.   Felucca just about ended to exist some months after AoS. That was the main reason why UO lost so many subscribers after Age of Shadows. Destroying UO by making it a WoW clone wasnt that smart. Felucca oldschool players left the game.
 The game didn't diminish because "Felucca Old School" players left the game, UO diminished because everyone started leaving the game. ** Sources: 1UP Article on UO Someone complaining in the SotA forums about Trammel release More or less the same conversation from 2005 on these forums Blog from 2005 noting that the population moved to Trammel  
Your wrong. 

 

Felucca players left the game in drowes and thats why game lost loads subscribers some months after AoS. I was there and i saw just about all old felucca guilds ending their subscriptions. I knew them and thats why i know your dead wrong. 

Thats also the reason why oldschool UO freeshards had an incredible boom in players after AoS. Some had +150000 followers. Thats alot of players, more then the original game had some years after AoS.

Making UO to just another themepark WoW game removed more subscribers then any other change to the game.

 

 




Anything other than your word and the stuff that you saw to support what you're saying? Anything? You are one person. What you saw or experienced isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who played the game.

 

I saw the population ingame before and after trammel and before and after Age of Shadows.

UP felucca was just fine after trammel.

After Age of Shadows it was soon to be deserted.

And i am far from alone.

Have to ask you again, did you play UO from beta -97 to Age of Shadows february 2003 as i did?

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

11/03/13 11:16:02 AM#262
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by The1ceQueen

Originally posted by Holophonist Implemented Trammel boosted subs for about a year. After that the game entered a 6 - 7 year downward spiral that was only temporarily halted after they released AOS, which they probably did because they were bleeding subs after Trammel.
That always happens when a game starts to age, newer Mmo's come out, take subscribers, people move on to the next best thing. Just the way it is.
May 2000 Trammel releases, UO has just under 150k players. Early 2003, UO has just over 200k players. Mid 2003, UO peaks at 250k players, this is just after the release of AoS. 2003 to Present - UO subscribers decline, private servers are created, etc. This can be attributed to many things, including people just not finding anything new in the game, but SWG is probably the main culprit since it offered an alternative to UO. Trammel boosted subs steadily for almost three years. AoS boosted subs for a very short period of time, but it wasn't enough. UO could not compete in a market where games had both full 3D graphics, well known IPs and accommodated players who weren't interested in player killing, looting or thievery. Not to mention UO was just getting old. If the style of PvP is a factor in a game's success, then accommodating players who are interested in PvE and instanced PvP is much more of sales draw over world PvP meaning SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery. If the style of PvP is less of a factor than the game's developer or IP, then SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery; they need a good developer and a decent IP. ** Sources: MMODATA.net Ultima Online Wikipedia Page  
Players used to the old skillsystem and features tried AoS out for some months, i did, and then we left the game in drowes.   Felucca just about ended to exist some months after AoS. That was the main reason why UO lost so many subscribers after Age of Shadows. Destroying UO by making it a WoW clone wasnt that smart. Felucca oldschool players left the game.
 The game didn't diminish because "Felucca Old School" players left the game, UO diminished because everyone started leaving the game. ** Sources: 1UP Article on UO Someone complaining in the SotA forums about Trammel release More or less the same conversation from 2005 on these forums Blog from 2005 noting that the population moved to Trammel  
Your wrong. 

 

Felucca players left the game in drowes and thats why game lost loads subscribers some months after AoS. I was there and i saw just about all old felucca guilds ending their subscriptions. I knew them and thats why i know your dead wrong. 

Thats also the reason why oldschool UO freeshards had an incredible boom in players after AoS. Some had +150000 followers. Thats alot of players, more then the original game had some years after AoS.

Making UO to just another themepark WoW game removed more subscribers then any other change to the game.

 

 




Anything other than your word and the stuff that you saw to support what you're saying? Anything? You are one person. What you saw or experienced isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who played the game.

 

I saw the population ingame before and after trammel and before and after Age of Shadows.

UP felucca was just fine after trammel.

After Age of Shadows it was soon to be deserted.

And i am far from alone.

Have to ask you again, did you play UO from beta -97 to Age of Shadows february 2003 as i did?

Anyways, I think all of this UO stuff belongs elsewhere. 

The topic of this post was pretty much covered before the KS was actually even over. Stealing, Killing, Thieves and PvP is in SotA. I don't see why we can't just end this at that and open new topics about specific issues you have or god forbid something nice to say.

  Aralvar

Novice Member

Joined: 10/06/12
Posts: 34

11/07/13 9:14:06 AM#263

Gee, I sure love spending time collecting gear so that some guy can eventually take all of it. That seems like a good use of my time to me.

 

Full loot, the ultimate time wasting feature!

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

11/07/13 10:30:32 AM#264
Originally posted by Aralvar

Gee, I sure love spending time collecting gear so that some guy can eventually take all of it. That seems like a good use of my time to me.

 

Full loot, the ultimate time wasting feature!

 

PvP is optional. Dump your gear somewhere, take only easily replaceable essentials. Turn the slider to PvP. Go PvP.

 

If anyone couldn't understand that simple of a process... other problems need to be taken care of first.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10942

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

11/07/13 10:38:35 AM#265


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by The1ceQueen

Originally posted by Holophonist Implemented Trammel boosted subs for about a year. After that the game entered a 6 - 7 year downward spiral that was only temporarily halted after they released AOS, which they probably did because they were bleeding subs after Trammel.
That always happens when a game starts to age, newer Mmo's come out, take subscribers, people move on to the next best thing. Just the way it is.
May 2000 Trammel releases, UO has just under 150k players. Early 2003, UO has just over 200k players. Mid 2003, UO peaks at 250k players, this is just after the release of AoS. 2003 to Present - UO subscribers decline, private servers are created, etc. This can be attributed to many things, including people just not finding anything new in the game, but SWG is probably the main culprit since it offered an alternative to UO. Trammel boosted subs steadily for almost three years. AoS boosted subs for a very short period of time, but it wasn't enough. UO could not compete in a market where games had both full 3D graphics, well known IPs and accommodated players who weren't interested in player killing, looting or thievery. Not to mention UO was just getting old. If the style of PvP is a factor in a game's success, then accommodating players who are interested in PvE and instanced PvP is much more of sales draw over world PvP meaning SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery. If the style of PvP is less of a factor than the game's developer or IP, then SotA doesn't need player killing, looting and thievery; they need a good developer and a decent IP. ** Sources: MMODATA.net Ultima Online Wikipedia Page  
Players used to the old skillsystem and features tried AoS out for some months, i did, and then we left the game in drowes.   Felucca just about ended to exist some months after AoS. That was the main reason why UO lost so many subscribers after Age of Shadows. Destroying UO by making it a WoW clone wasnt that smart. Felucca oldschool players left the game.
 The game didn't diminish because "Felucca Old School" players left the game, UO diminished because everyone started leaving the game. ** Sources: 1UP Article on UO Someone complaining in the SotA forums about Trammel release More or less the same conversation from 2005 on these forums Blog from 2005 noting that the population moved to Trammel  
Your wrong.    Felucca players left the game in drowes and thats why game lost loads subscribers some months after AoS. I was there and i saw just about all old felucca guilds ending their subscriptions. I knew them and thats why i know your dead wrong.  Thats also the reason why oldschool UO freeshards had an incredible boom in players after AoS. Some had +150000 followers. Thats alot of players, more then the original game had some years after AoS. Making UO to just another themepark WoW game removed more subscribers then any other change to the game.    
Anything other than your word and the stuff that you saw to support what you're saying? Anything? You are one person. What you saw or experienced isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who played the game.  
I saw the population ingame before and after trammel and before and after Age of Shadows.

UP felucca was just fine after trammel.

After Age of Shadows it was soon to be deserted.

And i am far from alone.

Have to ask you again, did you play UO from beta -97 to Age of Shadows february 2003 as i did?




So, in other words, you have nothing but your own point of view, with anecdotes, which are refuted by more anecdotes from players with the opposing point of view. In terms of "not being alone", the opposing view point wins. Also, your math is a bit wonky. If "some" private servers had more than 150k players, they would well exceed the total population of UO at its peak. But again, I'm betting you have nothing to support your point other than your assertion that you're right.

People who's job is to actually research things support the opposing point of view where the additional of Trammel largely emptied out Felucca because that's what players wanted.

When you can actually prove what you're saying, or have more than your own opinion to support it, I would concede that you have a point. Until then, all you have is an opinion, with nothing to support it.

The idea that player looting and stealing is necessary comes from the idea that SotA requires the support of UO players. Given the small population of UO players relative to the total number of MMORPG players, the support of UO players isn't terribly relevant, much less the support of only a portion of UO's population. None of those players could play SotA and it could be wildly successful as a game. If the support of UO players was required, the game would be called UO2 or something similar.

There is no aspect of the idea "If it doesn't have player looting and stealing, the game will fail" that is supportable with anything other than personal opinions. The total UO population is too small to make the difference between success and failure if the target audience isn't the UO population. Every game that targets player looting and stealing as a core game mechanic has a population so small that they do not matter either. Put them all together in one bucket and you'd have less than 100k people. Unless you include Eve players, but then you'd have to work with the idea that Eve players are going to leave Eve for SotA, and that doesn't seem likely. The total MMORPG population, even excluding WoW, is in the millions of players and half or more of them are pretty iffy on open world PvP in general, much less hard core open world PvP. Never mind that it's entirely possible for players to like more than one kind of game and more than one style of PvP. Eve players could be perfectly happy playing Eve with cut throat PvP, and playing SotA with no PvP at all.

The game doesn't need player looting and stealing at all. I would say be happy that they are providing it in the manner they are providing it, with the option for players to opt out because the more players there are, the more money the game will make, and less likely it is to be horrible like Mortal Online.

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10942

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

11/07/13 10:45:22 AM#266


Originally posted by Aralvar
Gee, I sure love spending time collecting gear so that some guy can eventually take all of it. That seems like a good use of my time to me.

 

Full loot, the ultimate time wasting feature!




One of the aspects of full loot games is the idea that gear is replaceable or insurable. There usually isn't gear that's nearly impossible to replace. In Eve, something can be expensive, but with enough ISK and enough insurance anything can be rebuilt. Something has to be lost, or the game is nearly meaningless, but with preparation, that loss isn't the end of the game and it doesn't mean starting over from scratch.

There's also a different focus in the game itself. In WoW, full loot would completely break the game. Players would suddenly be unable to run raids without re-running all the preliminary things. If WoW's focus wasn't raids to get gear, but rather crafting and territory control, the loss of gear wouldn't be such a big deal.

Full loot doesn't exist in a vacuum as the only game mechanic, it exists in relation to all the other game mechanics. There are games where it makes sense because that's how the game is made. There are games where it makes no sense because that's how the game is made.

I have no idea how SotA's gear is setup. Would losing gear suddenly prevent players from participating in a large part of game play? Would there be no recourse, other than repeating content that players have already "cleared"? I have no idea. It's not nearly as much of a road block as it could be, since SotA is going to offer players a choice about whether or not they want to participate in that kind of game play.

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  Hellidol

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/14/12
Posts: 384

11/07/13 10:46:00 AM#267
Originally posted by Darth-Batman
Because Darkfall is a shining example of a success story? All those open-world-pvp-full-loot games have something in common, they all struggle. All the 'hardcore' players chase away potential customers with their ganking until the community dies off. Players like me are left with nothing to do but hunt noob-hunters, which gets boring after day one and after day two all the 'noobs' have quit due to gankers small penile syndrome. I hope Shroud doesnt follow this pattern because if it does, chances are it'll share the same fate as Mortal Online and DF. 

not true at all but ok....hardcore and jackass are very different. Hardcore is someone being able to take out a group by him self or pestering them for a long period of time. Jackass is getting a group to camp some lowbies because you are not skilled enough to attack a group on your level.

Also know your audience, the target audience might have nothing not be whom you think it is.

  Phry

Elite Member

Joined: 7/01/04
Posts: 5431

11/07/13 10:57:07 AM#268
Personally, im more than happy to have the PVP be an 'option' where players can choose to either participate, or not, it should not be forced upon them, of course i have no problem with players who choose to participate in the PVP also have full loot options on those they defeat, it keeps them happy, in the meantime the players who prefer to play PVE can do so without restrictions, sounds good to me
  Bilgato

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/11
Posts: 23

I do all my own artwork with MS Paint.
No, fer reals...why would I lie about something like that?

11/07/13 12:02:44 PM#269

Getting armor shouldn't be hard or expensive if they keep with the UO style.

In UO my fighter guy wore nothing but orc armor and axes, I had stacks of it in my shack, I just dyed the boots and gloves brown to and wore a brown cape personalize it and keep my friends from accidently hitting me when we were around orcs.

 

I started my fighting career from being a lumberjack trying to get revenge on an orc camp that kept robbing and killing me...so really  all of my war-gear was free...accept for paying in a little blood occasionally.

 

Buying vendor "whites" was as good as anything, since it was skill based combat and not modern MMO gear based...I hope they do it the same way. I liked being able to roll out and PvE or PvP in junk you scrounged off the ground at the bank much better than these modern systems. I really am not a fan of twinks/twinking, that's just a cheap short-cut to a hollow win in my book.

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/07/13 12:41:02 PM#270
Originally posted by Phry
Personally, im more than happy to have the PVP be an 'option' where players can choose to either participate, or not, it should not be forced upon them, of course i have no problem with players who choose to participate in the PVP also have full loot options on those they defeat, it keeps them happy, in the meantime the players who prefer to play PVE can do so without restrictions, sounds good to me

If you play the riskier game (PvP) you should have better rewards for doing that.

Taking part in open PvP should give you more and better rescources both from gathering and from killing mobs.

Getting the same rescources in the PvE version of SotA will destroy the incentive to ever gather in open PvP places.

Their need to be carrots if you really want the PvE crowd to enter areas with risk for getting involved in PvP.

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

11/07/13 11:12:07 PM#271
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Phry
Personally, im more than happy to have the PVP be an 'option' where players can choose to either participate, or not, it should not be forced upon them, of course i have no problem with players who choose to participate in the PVP also have full loot options on those they defeat, it keeps them happy, in the meantime the players who prefer to play PVE can do so without restrictions, sounds good to me

If you play the riskier game (PvP) you should have better rewards for doing that.

Taking part in open PvP should give you more and better rescources both from gathering and from killing mobs.

Getting the same rescources in the PvE version of SotA will destroy the incentive to ever gather in open PvP places.

Their need to be carrots if you really want the PvE crowd to enter areas with risk for getting involved in PvP.

 

 

You are speaking for yourself again. 

I do not need an incentive to PvP. I don't care if the "reward" as you put it is 25% of what PvE players get. As long as I get to PK in game, then I am totally fine with the game!!

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/08/13 1:29:56 AM#272
Originally posted by InsaneMembrane
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Phry
Personally, im more than happy to have the PVP be an 'option' where players can choose to either participate, or not, it should not be forced upon them, of course i have no problem with players who choose to participate in the PVP also have full loot options on those they defeat, it keeps them happy, in the meantime the players who prefer to play PVE can do so without restrictions, sounds good to me

If you play the riskier game (PvP) you should have better rewards for doing that.

Taking part in open PvP should give you more and better rescources both from gathering and from killing mobs.

Getting the same rescources in the PvE version of SotA will destroy the incentive to ever gather in open PvP places.

Their need to be carrots if you really want the PvE crowd to enter areas with risk for getting involved in PvP.

 

 

You are speaking for yourself again. 

I do not need an incentive to PvP. I don't care if the "reward" as you put it is 25% of what PvE players get. As long as I get to PK in game, then I am totally fine with the game!!

Its not about need of better reward, it is common sense.

  iridescence

Elite Member

Joined: 6/12/12
Posts: 1460

11/08/13 3:06:59 AM#273

The way I understand it, their method of game design will give full loot PVP griefing lulz to those who want that sort of gameplay. Isn't that enough for you?

 

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/08/13 6:14:46 AM#274
Originally posted by iridescence

The way I understand it, their method of game design will give full loot PVP griefing lulz to those who want that sort of gameplay. Isn't that enough for you?

 

Griefing is not in the game, PvP is consent only.

Full loot isnt decided yet. I doubt we will see full loot.

Risk vs reward is important in any game and giving better rewards to the ones that take bigger risks is logical..

  azzamasin

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/06/12
Posts: 2824

We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.

11/08/13 6:21:19 AM#275
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

UO didn't start getting really popular until Tramel released.  AKA the PvE server.

 

 

Face it folks, FFA PvP is a niche and will never be mega huge.

If your idea of a Sandbox is open FFA Full Loot PvP, full crafted world with minimal support for anything combat then your sandbox ideas are bad! Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/08/13 8:45:13 AM#276
Originally posted by azzamasin
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

UO didn't start getting really popular until Tramel released.  AKA the PvE server.

 

 

Face it folks, FFA PvP is a niche and will never be mega huge.

Had little problem with trammel since the felucca PvP players still played with me in felucca. And the game was really popular even before trammel was introduced even though i give you right that trammel had a positive effect on subs.

Felucca died when Age of Shadows were released february 2003. AoS changed UO to a WoW game. So what actually happened was that removing full loot with the insurance on gear and creating a game with uber weapons and armor was what destroyed UO. Add different retarded skill and PvP system to that and you had the total fiasco.

EA destroyed UO.

The demand for a similar game as old UO is still very high and will continue to be like that. Some players dont like the carebear games.

  Astraeis

Hard Core Member

Joined: 9/17/10
Posts: 304

11/08/13 11:01:28 AM#277
Originally posted by Aragon100


giving better rewards to the ones that take bigger risks is logical..

Not when failure is the result of taking more risk, and failure is the result of taking more risks. So logic would demand that no reward is the reward for taking bigger risks.

It takes one to know one.

  Bilgato

Novice Member

Joined: 7/25/11
Posts: 23

I do all my own artwork with MS Paint.
No, fer reals...why would I lie about something like that?

11/08/13 11:50:53 AM#278

As some have said, PvP/action is it's own reward. You don't need to incentivize it, those who want to do it will do it, those who don't, won't.Your payment is the suspense and adrenalin you get from being in that environment.

If a place is offered where people can PK, gank, and tea-bag there will be people doing it. Once word gets out via YouTube and people can see that there is a game offering that, they will come.

 

For an example look at WarZ/Infestation, good game and mechanics, but the company is crap and they sell "power" (bullets really only available in the cash shop & night-vision goggles too) so it's totally Pay-To-Win, but they keep people playing with the hard-core PvP and full-loot system.

Once word gets out that SoTA has "Lord of The Flies" mode, people who are into it will start to find out and they will want to get involved, especially if it's not cash-shop Pay 2 Win.

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/08/13 1:23:40 PM#279
Originally posted by Astraeis
Originally posted by Aragon100


giving better rewards to the ones that take bigger risks is logical..

Not when failure is the result of taking more risk, and failure is the result of taking more risks. So logic would demand that no reward is the reward for taking bigger risks.

Putting yourself into more danger and a higher risk of failure should give a better reward on succeeding.

I have no idea what youre talking about.

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

11/08/13 1:29:38 PM#280
Originally posted by Bilgato

As some have said, PvP/action is it's own reward. You don't need to incentivize it, those who want to do it will do it, those who don't, won't.Your payment is the suspense and adrenalin you get from being in that environment.

If a place is offered where people can PK, gank, and tea-bag there will be people doing it. Once word gets out via YouTube and people can see that there is a game offering that, they will come.

 

For an example look at WarZ/Infestation, good game and mechanics, but the company is crap and they sell "power" (bullets really only available in the cash shop & night-vision goggles too) so it's totally Pay-To-Win, but they keep people playing with the hard-core PvP and full-loot system.

Once word gets out that SoTA has "Lord of The Flies" mode, people who are into it will start to find out and they will want to get involved, especially if it's not cash-shop Pay 2 Win.

Your wrong.

There need to be rewards like full loot to keep interest up.

Without any reward it is just like playing poker with fake money. Totally uninteresting.

 

15 Pages First « 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 » Search