Trending Games | Landmark | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade | Star Wars: The Old Republic | EVE Online

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,919,399 Users Online:0
Games:760  Posts:6,309,741
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System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info?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 « 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Last Search
295 posts found
  Holophonist

Elite Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2049

9/02/13 9:43:49 AM#81
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Holophonist

Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.

If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?

I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.

It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.

And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.

Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.

 

Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.

See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.
  lizardbones

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10953

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

9/02/13 10:29:49 AM#82


Originally posted by Icewhite
Games should be more than simple power fantasies.


Good luck with that. The only way that's ever worked out for me is by playing single player games.

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

  lizardbones

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10953

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

9/02/13 10:34:40 AM#83


Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.



I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.

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

  botrytis

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/04/05
Posts: 2564

9/02/13 10:36:36 AM#84
Originally posted by Komandor

The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.

 

If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.

 

They basically need to make a better Darkfall.

There are so few Hardcore players - IF you want to have a failed game then do EXACTLY as you propose. The idea is to bring as MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE - not cater to the wicked few.

"In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  STYNKFYST

Novice Member

Joined: 5/27/13
Posts: 313

9/02/13 11:11:54 AM#85
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Holophonist

Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.

If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?

I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.

It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.

And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.

Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.

 

Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.

See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.

He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.

No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?

 

As to the OP:

FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.

  Holophonist

Elite Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2049

9/02/13 11:26:43 AM#86
Originally posted by STYNKFYST
Originally posted by Holophonist
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Holophonist

Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.

If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?

I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.

It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.

And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.

Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.

 

Wow record time. Normally it takes at least a few relies before you try to save face and slink away. So are you going to respond to the stuff about trammel? Or anything? How does that doctor analogy not make sense? This is why I told you to grow up. You love getting your pot shots in but refuse to have an actual discussion.

See you next time you randomly show up to tell me I'm wrong but not explain yourself.

He already responded about Trammel...and was right. You just don't get it or have talked yourself into some other version of history. If sales/subs peeked 2-3 after Trammel was released, how in any way did it do anything but help UO? And the Doctor analogy makes sense to you, ok, but not those of us that see it to be far off base.

No matter how many times JLP would explain it to you, correctly, you would just try to come up with a counter argument. So what's the point?

 

As to the OP:

FFA PvPers always say they want these type of games because they want a more "realistic" world. Then all they do is take advantage of the system to grief ppl. Maybe not all, but enough to ruin the game for new ppl. Besides the fact that there is nothing "realistic" about full loot FF PvP in a video game. Not enough systems in place to make it so. No police, prison, executions, or anything like what the "real" world has had or has. At least the original UO had a top down view so you could see them coming better.

 

He in fact did not respond to the trammel part of my post. Look, what was trammel supposed to do? Get a temporary boost before slowly dying? Or was it supposed to breathe new life into the game? Pointing out that the peak came after trammel is a dishonest and purposefully shallow way to say that trammel didnt kill UO. If you think that trammel was meant to temporarily boost subs, it succeeded. If you think it was supposed to save the game, it failed.

Enter the doctor analogy. So far I have 2 people saying it doesnt make sense, but nobody saying why. But hey that's how people on the internet argue. The analogy is meant to explain why trammel was a failure. They chose to implement trammel INSTEAD of other possible options that may have worked. How does my analogy not explain that?
  Drailli

Novice Member

Joined: 10/05/12
Posts: 31

9/02/13 11:44:44 AM#87

Here's the thing, if you want PvP go over to the site, fund the project to a level where you get to put your 5 cents in, and then do so. If you're just going to sit on here and scream about it and say it will fail while people are already throwing money at them, then you might need to rethink your priorities. I mean, if you want full loot pvp maybe you would like to look at Star Citizen, they already said that game will have it. Now Lord British and Roberts are always a talking, I know there are already cross over items, and I wouldn't be shocked if some type of play style ideas overlapped.

I'm pretty sure if you try to gank someone in a town on SoTA that tessla tower is going to light you up, in the wild you might get away with it. Still, the issue is, with crowd funded games, you need to put your money where your mouth is or sit down and shut up. If your not pledging and helping to pay for the title then your opinion does not matter over those that are. 

Simply put, if five thousand people pay money into the game and say they want PvE and five thousand people don't give them a dime and demand PvP, then the PvPers are going to have to go have a bit of a cry. Crowd Funding is supposed to work that way, the people can make the game they want by getting the support of the players, not some big company that says demographics want this, you do this.

  User Deleted
9/03/13 8:01:10 AM#88
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.


I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.

 

There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?

  User Deleted
9/03/13 8:02:40 AM#89
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by Komandor

The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.

 

If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.

 

They basically need to make a better Darkfall.

There are so few Hardcore players - IF you want to have a failed game then do EXACTLY as you propose. The idea is to bring as MANY PLAYERS AS POSSIBLE - not cater to the wicked few.

EVE has over 40,000 players logged in any any given time, paying a subscription. THey have a couple hundred thousand accounts. Most game would love to have that. There are MANY hardcore players.

  Aragon100

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2234

9/15/13 8:48:27 AM#90
Originally posted by mCalvert
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.


I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.

 

There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?

Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?

Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.

I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.

  User Deleted
9/15/13 11:19:47 AM#91
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by mCalvert
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.


I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.

 

There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?

The flaw with your reasoning is that -

how many AAA companies have created such a game?

Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.

I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.

 

I don't see how that's a flaw given youre agreeing with me.

  Aragon100

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2234

9/15/13 1:20:51 PM#92
Originally posted by mCalvert
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by mCalvert
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.


I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.

 

There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?

The flaw with your reasoning is that -

how many AAA companies have created such a game?

Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.

I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.

 

I don't see how that's a flaw given youre agreeing with me.

Agree, edited it. 

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/17/13 12:17:42 PM#93

Just wondering if you guys have heard of The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) Portalarium devs have come up with?

There is a lot of discussion about crime, PvP, PK, grief, flagging, criminals, justice, and so on. Why? I think it is slightly pointless and only serves as a distraction, and here is why.

If you don't already know, PvP will be optional, and that option is controlled directly via The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). That means you must actually choose to enter into a game mode with The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM). Not only that, but when you do enter that PvP game mode The magichandshakesliderbarthingy(TM) will then prevent all players who have not optionally selected a hardcore male non-nub game mode from interacting with your game instance itself.

It really is quite simple.

 

So if all PvP is optional, then all laws should be thrown out the window. There is simply no need. Let us hardcore players have our fun in the dog eat dog world of chaos while people who don't want PvP are happily chopping down trees somewhere far far away.

 

But allow them to visit from time to time... Once they see the beauty we create, I am sure they will be more interested in staying than in leaving :P

Peace.

  dontadow

Novice Member

Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 1049

9/23/13 10:34:48 AM#94
I would actually love game companies who design multiplayer role playing games to include features that are specific for the game's design and story. If the game is designed around conflict then sure, make the whoel game about pvp. If the game is very storybased then focus on those features.  If a game is designed around living in a world and making a living, then include crafting. As now, every game throws in everything because they believe that its not a massive multiplayer role playing game if it doesnt have these things. 
  lizardbones

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10953

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

9/23/13 11:01:53 AM#95


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.  
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?

Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.

I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.




UO had to switch over to a mostly PvE game in order to survive. It's the best example of what you're talking about, and it's not a very good example of what you're talking about.

Developers do not create markets. The markets either exist or they don't and developers are capable of taking advantage of that market. There are games for that market, they just aren't taking off. Not the way early MMORPGs took off. If the market was there, if it could support a AAA game, then the games made for that market would have taken off much more than they did. The market is too small and game development is too expensive for it to work.

Richard Garriott, more than anyone is aware of this. He was there when Trammell was released and he knows, better than anyone else, how the players responded to that change. This is why players can choose how they play in SotA.

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

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/23/13 11:19:41 PM#96
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by mCalvert

Originally posted by Mavek

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall.
I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?
Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.
I think the issue with that kind of thinking is that there are games for that market right now, but they don't seem to be taking off. The developers who make those games are struggling, and not looking like a good investment. If that market was stable, even if it was small, then there would be some small, but very successful developers.  
There aren't games for that market. EVE and Darkfall are the only ones that work. Mortal was a buggy failure from day one. What else is there with full looting, open pvp focus, and bug free design?
Agree, how many AAA companies have created such a game?

 

Answer - UO was the only one. And it started 1997.

I'm pretty sure it would work out very well and the game would survive just as long if not longer then most PvE games.




UO had to switch over to a mostly PvE game in order to survive. It's the best example of what you're talking about, and it's not a very good example of what you're talking about.

Developers do not create markets. The markets either exist or they don't and developers are capable of taking advantage of that market. There are games for that market, they just aren't taking off. Not the way early MMORPGs took off. If the market was there, if it could support a AAA game, then the games made for that market would have taken off much more than they did. The market is too small and game development is too expensive for it to work.

Richard Garriott, more than anyone is aware of this. He was there when Trammell was released and he knows, better than anyone else, how the players responded to that change. This is why players can choose how they play in SotA.

 

Y'all know that Portalarium is not a AAA company right? Facts are something we all need to git learnt'. 

I think the fact that SotA is going to let you choose a bit more about how your play is freaking awesome. I have played STO, I have played LOTRO, I have played NWO, I have played BSGO, I've played every MMO basically since Ultima Online. They either nerf PvP all together or you don't get a choice. People without a choice freak out and can't deal, at least here with SotA you may get some of those nubs choosing to go hardcore PvP and actually enjoy it because it is their choice. Don't forget how powerful the illusion of choice is. It is used on us every day.

If all the people dumping their money on in game property equates to me getting a better PvP engine, HELL YEAH, keep buying those houses you little wallet warriors.

 

  Stofftier

Novice Member

Joined: 9/19/10
Posts: 96

9/23/13 11:27:48 PM#97

it will not function like darkfall for the reason there are much more games out there then at uo times .

and  much more players that behave like douchebags.And trader and rp  players doesnt need to join the pvp guys anymore they take another game where they dont get disturbed every 5 min think what you will but open world pvp days are long time over.

  Darkholme

Tipster

Joined: 3/02/04
Posts: 1227

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer..."

9/23/13 11:49:30 PM#98

Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history."

This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.

I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it.

Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing). 

-------------------------
"Searchers after horror haunt strange, far places..." ~ H.P.Lovecraft, "From Beyond"

  Aragon100

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2234

9/24/13 8:49:15 AM#99
Originally posted by Darkholme

Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history."

This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day.

I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it.

Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing). 

Agree to the fullest.

Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.

Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.

 

  lizardbones

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10953

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

9/24/13 8:57:17 AM#100


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Darkholme Originally posted by Komandor - "It was fail. Trammel pretty much killed UO. This is common knowledge. Worst move in gaming history." This is a patently false statement. The subscriber-ship of Ultima Online skyrocketed with the release of Renaissance, and it kept on growing up until the release of Age of Shadows well and truly killed off Ultima Online, completing the WOW-ification of the game. That is when the game started to decline in subscriber population that continues to this day. I was just thinking about this whole debate the other day and how people that were actually there remember how it really went down. Yes the game might have been ruined for those that love to gank and grief, but the reality is that you are NOT the majority of Ultima fans, or MMORPG fans and a game with FFA PVP, stealing and corpse looting will NEVER find mainstream success... ever. Is there a niche for it? Certainly, and there are games that fill it. Full disclosure, I actually was a thief on Atlantic server back in the day and did faction PvP, and enjoyed both immensely, and I maintained a character on Siege Perilous when it was opened. I do enjoy the playstyle (aside from ganking and griefing). 
Agree to the fullest.

Age of Shadows that WoW-ified UO was the final nail for so many players. That was what killed UO felucca and made about half the subscribers leave the game.

Felucca was very populated all the way up to february 2003 when UO went WoW. Some claim that trammel killed felucca but that is very far from the truth. I was there and saw felucca players leave in hordes after Age of Shadows was introduced.

 




So posts like this one, from 2002 were insane ravings?

How to bring back Felucca?



From Game-Master.Net
Here is my question for you:

Trammel is full, Felucca is empty…
How do we bring balance to the two facets while at the same time keeping the Trammies happy?
(happy trammies == happy OSI).




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

15 Pages First « 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Last Search