1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

An old text of Designer Dragons views on PvP

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Guest, Apr 18, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I saved this text year 2002 but it's from when Trammel was born. I think we and Devs/EA need to read it again. I forgot where I found it.

    .............................................................

    The following was written on the Ultima Online newsgroup in late June of 2000 as part of a lengthy thread where much about the development of UO was debated. A few paragraphs of it have come to be widely quoted, so I am reproducing it here, despite some hesitancy in that the post makes UO out to be much worse than it actually was--chalk that up to my harsh self-criticism, if you like.


    So this (really long) thread really made me think tonight (and not just because Zaphkiel made me look like a math-impaired idiot, either. [​IMG] It made me question a lot of assumptions. Forgive this rambling post as I dissect what my thinking is on all this--I welcome the feedback.

    First off, I have no patience for harassers, ****s, etc. They make my physically very angry when I see them, and during my whole time at OSI I was continually frustrated by the lack of action against them. I know many of you will not believe this statement, or will think it hypocritical, but I ask you to take it at face value.

    When we started up UO, we were very naive about some things. For one thing, the game design was originally for a MUCH smaller world. We were asked to change it from a 300 player game to a 3000 player game around nine months before ship. All of our expectations were for not only a smaller simulatenous population, but also for a smaller playerbase in general--forecasts for sales were not very high, and the most successful online game to date at that time was Meridian 59. We expected to do better, but not by an order of magnitude.

    A lot of the things we wanted to do were different from how muds had done things. We had both played and worked on muds with switches, and our experiences were universally lousy. Loopholes, ways to 'pk' without actually pk'ing, artificial restrictions on grouping and equipment use--all sorts of things that damaged immersion and physics and led to a lot of special-case code. We wanted to make a game that was more immersive, and that meant putting in a lot more freedoms into the game. We wanted to challenge players to act ethically, in the spirit of the Ultimas previous, without making it a set of quests that would be 'gamed' and up on a cheat website within a couple of weeks--and we didn't want that to happen not because it meant extra work making new quests all the time, but because it meant that ethics themselves were being "gamed" and were therefore meaningless. We were not prepared for the audience we got--this was evident not only in the game design, but if you recall, in the hardware infrastructure we had at launch.

    We also wanted to get away from levels, believing that levels were a) an addictive but shallow game mechanic and therefore not good for overall game longevity, b) divisive of players in that you have to create level restrictions on stuff all over the place, c) poorly suited for other forms of gameplay, such as questing, social achievement, etc, and therefore restrictive of player experimentation with other things to do. There were other things we wanted to do to change things from the typical mud pattern (which is today best exemplified for all of you by EverQuest, since its design is *extremely* close to that of a standard well-evolved Diku mud).

    Things that I have changed my mind on:


    I used to think that a richer, more challenging game would be rewarded. I am no longer sure that is the case. I think that had we just made the same game we had made previously, only bigger, that UO would probably have done much better. The market, and more particularly the players, don't reward experimentation very much. More people are willing to do the same repetitive activity over and over again for the sake of getting a red polkadotted item to replace the green striped one, than are willing to engage in a broader range of activity. This is evident industry-wide, to my mind, and I am not saying to slam on EQ (especially not given that I work for Verant now). More as a comment on the audience in general--most people want mere entertainment, stuff that is easy to cope with. Stuff that doesn't make them ask questions of themselves. Witness TV and movies and books, all of which are mostly affirmations that "you're doing the right thing" or "whatever you do is normal compared to THIS."

    I like safe and wild zoning now. I really, really didn't. I have never seen an arena embedded in an otherwise safe game that was at all popular after three months, and the boundary conditions are truly a pain in the ass to deal with, leading to tons of exploits and problems. On top of that, safe zones tend to be way the heck more profitable for everyone including the people who really ought to be playing in the danger zones, so the danger zones tend to tank, just like separate PvP servers do.

    I used to think that you could reform bad apples, and argue with hard cases. I'm more cynical these days.

    Closed economies can't work.

    A sandbox is not enough.

    I used to think that people were willing to act communally for the good of the community. Now I know more about the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner's Dilemma and think that people are mostly selfish. This isn't Ivory Tower theory gone looking for empirical evidence. It's experience gone looking for explanations.
    Things that I still believe today:

    Related to the last one--what I now know more about regarding how the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner's Dilemma are reflected in the lack of communal action, has just reinforced my thoughts on the importance of the Other and so on. Simply put, I think that the things that drive community are: shared interest to get everyone in the same place; limited resources that you need to cooperate over so everyone gets enough; and an enemy you have to fight to keep out (and often, I think that I have served the role of said enemy in this newsgroup). Yes, communities form without the enemy, but they seem to fragment into cliques and manufacture an enemy within themselves (again, like this ng many times!). Shared interest by itself doesn't really drive community. It drives acquaintanceships. And acquaintanceships are easy to come by, there's no need to make a whole honkin' game for them. As far as limited resources--we were stumbling about in the dark on this issue when we set up the game economy, when we did the size map we did... none of the games out there limit resources enough because they are all hung up on "having enough for everybody." Well, a game with enough for everybody is a game where you don't need other people very much. But on top of that, even though UO did limit resources more than most, it didn't provide any benefit for sharing them or working together to extract them. Miners were penalized for working near each other, for example, rather than encouraged to do so.

    Switches still suck. They damage immersion badly by requiring either the exclusion of or the fictional incoherence of all area-based effects; they do not handle many of the indirect forms of possible conflict (often fatal things, like blocking for example), leading to ways to get around the switch; they don't work very well as a way of mixing PvP and -PvP styles within one game because the grief players will just move on to alternate forms of causing grief while the PvPers will feel forced out of the game by all the restrictions...

    Levels still suck. I don't know what the complete replacement is, but I am troubled by how addictive the experiences we're making are (like, seriously addictive, ruin-your-life addictive) and I think levels are a large part of that. Plus I still find them divisive of players and a forced limit on interaction, however convenient they may be for advancement ladders. They are a bad model in terms of adding ongoing content to your game, in that you always have to add at the top end, and you have database deflation problems. Lastly, I have trouble fitting in many of the mechanics we were successful in putting into UO, such as crafting, onto standard level systems.

    There are a substantial amount of people out there who enjoy player vs player conflict of all sorts, who get crowded out of a game when it is completely safe, and go play elsewhere. And these people aren't necessarily ****s. But it is easy for them to become ****s if they feel put upon enough or if they think they can get away with it. I'm gonna disergard Bartle's Four, gonna ignore all statistics--this is just my opinion and my sense of things based on everything I have seen.

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    Someday we WILL be able to hand over the reins of policing to players. It will be seen as just a meta-game for those who are interested in it (and what's more, I bet the cops will be the same people we're currently turning into grief players with our limited mechanics). But right now, neither players nor developers are ready. I can't tell you how much I wish that in UO we had found a way to make the players able to do this, actually able to win against the bad guys--because I do regard those grief players and those rampant PKers (be they the "good" ones or the griefy ones) as the bad guys in this virtual world, far more so than the monsters. One of my biggest disappointments in UO is that we never found a way to have the good guys win.

    Thinking crazily into the future--the above point matters a lot to me because I do think that we will have virtual spaces where there's no admins to call. And it's a good idea to tackle the problems of not having admins while we still have admins to fall back on. As it is, the FBI can't do diddlysquat about most hacking cases, and it's gonna get worse when you do, say, remote medical monitoring via a virtual environment, and you get the future equivalent of PKed somehow. I can't even predict what shape this will take, but it will happen... I also know that a lot of players might even agree that this is something that needs tackled, just not in their backyard.

    Lastly, and feel free to call me a stupid idealist on this: I still believe we need to get all kinds of people into one game. That niche products are all well and good, but we already KNOW how to make those, and they aren't going to teach us anything interesting about ourselves. It's so easy to fall into ruts and niches in our real lives, and I want online worlds to offer us exotic experiences and interaction with people we wouldn't interact with otherwise, and a chance to try out lifestyles and worldviews we otherwise wouldn't have, a chance to try to solve problems that we find difficult to tackle in the real world. Otherwise, why bother making them? I am not that interested in them solely as games--games are all over the place, and there are plenty of narrowly focused communities out there. You can find a support group or hobbyist club for just about anything you want, but you're mostly going to find other people like you there. And I am not nearly as interested in how people interact with likeminded souls as I am in how to bridge gaps between people.
    In an odd sort of summary... Being safe from evil is, in my mind, an uneven tradeoff for the fact that you don't get to be heroes anymore, in that you can just opt out of fighting evil. It may be nobody wants to be heroes except when it doesn't count, when it isn't challenging, that people would rather fight "pretend evil" than the real thing, but I don't personally believe that. I still think people are better than that. I know this is an odd and probably controversial (perhaps even stupid) position to take, but it's how I feel. I think that the greatest value of interactive entertainment is when it engages you for real, and teaches you things for real. It is what made the Ultima series great. For me, the struggle to be good, to be one of the good guys, is where people were really challenged in UO, and it's not really a challenge that exists elsewhere. Sure, you can choose not to use ShowEQ, or choose not to auction spawn points in AC on eBay, but these are not as immediate and direct as dealing with people "virtually" face to face. Being safe from the only real evil in the game, and choosing not to fight it is, well, just fine, but it's also nothing that is going to teach you about where you stand. It's the difference between living the Virtues and, well, playing them in a computer game.
    It kinda saddens me and scares me to write the above paragraph, because I know that many will misread my intent in writing it, will take bits out of context, will feel insulted. But I don't mean any of that by it. The failure was ours in setting up the game, for not making it possible enough to live the Virtues and establish by consensus a better place, a better society. This is why I proposed elsewhere in the thread letting people fall back on the code crutch of a safe zone once they had done it once, at least. You still get the experience of actually building a society, but after that the hard part (keeping it going) is handled for you. (Yes, townstones are at the top of my "wish we had gotten it into the game" list).

    I can't think of any better experience to have in ANY game of ANY sort than for real people to work together against antisocial activity, selfish people, and other forms of creeping insidious evil, and WIN, and build something lasting and good. To work together and have fun together with types of people they never would have considered worth speaking to otherwise. And yes, to convert a few selfish jerks into better people along the way. If having this experience in a game means that they are more likely to dare to do it in real life instead of living in passivity, then I'll feel like something really important has been accomplished.

    My greatest worry is that instead, we've inadvertantly taught people to be bad as far as they can get away with. Or, far more troublesome, that Daddy will solve it for you and you can feel free to just complain about the problem from time to time, and ignore it. Right now, I have to believe that enough people learned the right lesson, because I DO see it every day in players of these games, and *especially* in players of UO, whom I have watched grow to a much greater awareness of social issues and community formation issues over the years, and become far better able to engage in high level discourse about the tough questions in MMORPGs.

    But there's no doubt that it can be done better, and though giving up and just entertaining the "good people" may be better business or may be enough to bring in the money, it's not enough to make me feel like this is a field worth being in. It's about the other people. Dani Berry said, "At the end of the day, nobody ever regrets not having spent more time on the computer." That's why she made multiplayer games, so that the computers would be other people. That's why I want to make this sort of game too.

    Hopefully this lengthy post puts some of my replies in this thread into context. Flame away.

    .................................................
     
  2. Thanks for posting this! Given that a lot of the threads on here lately have been tiptoeing around these same issues, I think this piece might provide some much-needed structure.

    I'm just not sure whether to be elated or depressed at the fact that we're still struggling with all of this almost a decade later. [​IMG]
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

  4. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    [/ QUOTE ]



    Checkmate.



    It's only the same thing me and a thousand other "Care bears" have been saying for years now. For all who whine about a classic shard, or think player conflict was the bee's knee's of UO, read this article, then read it again and again till it sinks in.
     
  5. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    Someday we WILL be able to hand over the reins of policing to players. It will be seen as just a meta-game for those who are interested in it (and what's more, I bet the cops will be the same people we're currently turning into grief players with our limited mechanics)

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Bingo. Fail. 10 years. Still no way to do it. Stat loss didn't even touch it.



    Greeef.
     
  6. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    As it is, the FBI can't do diddlysquat about most hacking cases, and it's gonna get worse when you do, say, remote medical monitoring via a virtual environment, and you get the future equivalent of PKed somehow.

    [/ QUOTE ]


    LOL!!!


    nerf greeeferz! get away from my heart monitor you little punk!
     
  7. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post count +1 ftw!!!


    You know, the constant battles of Tram vs. Fel, and my own passionate outlook on the whole subject, makes me think.

    How would you have done it (anyone...not just you Frej)........????

    How do you deal with the innability to police the game? The rampant pk'ing and griefing that went on in early UO? I can't think of a single better way than the introduction of Trammel. I know even dear designer dragon thought that "switches" suck, but, at least in today's world, it gives people a CHOICE. Choices are what a really good MMORPG are all about. Granted, the "switch" or in this case, the moongate, are rather, shall we say, superficial, but it works.

    If you can think of a good way to truely balance these issues, without the grief that pre-Trammel UO had, ruining it for most players, you will have the next best MMORPG.

    Honestly, I can't think of any other way than having a "switch". That "switch" could be terribly intricate though if enough thought were put into it. And I'm not getting paid to do so. To date, all developers have done it with simple "switches" like moongates, or dedicated pvm/pvp servers.
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Thanks for posting this! Given that a lot of the threads on here lately have been tiptoeing around these same issues, I think this piece might provide some much-needed structure.

    I'm just not sure whether to be elated or depressed at the fact that we're still struggling with all of this almost a decade later. [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    My thoughts too. I think we do need to learn from the past. Alot devs and players are new to UO do not see the problems we get from UO becoming more and more safe and easy.

    DD was a wise man. I wish I had saved alot of the debat from Crossroad of Britainnia we had before Siege and Trammel was born.

    He once said, it would be easier to make a Dark Shard than a Happy Shard and we did get out Dark Shard but sadly they decided to make it an Advance shard too and removed alot freedom from the shard.

    We got the Happy shard too but as a Safe Zone that ended up becoming several safe zones and total killing the original spirit of UO.

    I really wish we could go back in time and do the split again but as a total split in Happy and Dark shards.

    Is it to late? I don't think so, UO is dying so making the split now may save UO.

    Make 5 new Happy shards and 2 new Dark shards in US, one dark and one happy in EU and X happy and X dark shards in JP and allow players to deed their houses with items and transfere char, backpack, stable and bank to one of the new shards.

    Give the players one month to move, after that, all chars, inactive as well as active will be transfered to a temp storing base, and first time they login the char, they will be forced to choose a not filled shard with room for their house.

    Later this could be used to store inactive accounts, there is no reason a inactive account should take up a house spot.

    When the new shards get filled, make more of them
     
  9. Raph Koster was (in my opinion) one of the developers with the most depth and the best ideas.

    "We wanted to make a game that was more immersive, and that meant putting in a lot more freedoms into the game. [...] We were not prepared for the audience we got--this was evident not only in the game design, but if you recall, in the hardware infrastructure we had at launch."

    I think, exactly those freedoms were responsible for the game's success. They made a game with a lot of freedoms, and it was in the hands of the players how it evolved. In the Early Days, you were allowed to attack any player, to loot any corpse, with not too serious consequences. I'd rather have griefers and PKers in the game, than a set of complicated rules restricting everybody in their gameplay.

    One statement is very very true (and that's why I do not play on Siege, although I like PvP):

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    Hawkeye Pike
    The United Pirates of Catskills
    PvP-oriented roleplaying guild
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    [/ QUOTE ]



    Checkmate.



    It's only the same thing me and a thousand other "Care bears" have been saying for years now. For all who whine about a classic shard, or think player conflict was the bee's knee's of UO, read this article, then read it again and again till it sinks in.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Noone say DD is right in everything. WOW did somewhat prove him wrong here.

    I don't know how it is for US-WOW serverers but for the English EU servers, PvP have far the higest population.

    34 normal servers, non is full
    63 PvP servers, 14 is full
    6 RP
    5 RPPvP

    Sure the PvP servers do not have much risk as you can be looted.

    I still believe it is possible to make PvP shards for UO that stay true to the spirit of old UO as long risk is balanced vs the rewards.
     
  11. Der Rock

    Der Rock Guest

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Checkmate.
    It's only the same thing me and a thousand other "Care bears" have been saying for years now. For all who whine about a classic shard, or think player conflict was the bee's knee's of UO, read this article, then read it again and again till it sinks in.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    do u realy think they will understood, even if they would read it 100 times??

    look what frejasp wrote:
    ---------------------------------------------
    "I really wish we could go back in time and do the split again but as a total split in Happy and Dark shards.
    Is it to late? I don't think so, UO is dying so making the split now may save UO.
    Make 5 new Happy shards and 2 new Dark shards in US, one dark and one happy in EU and X happy and X dark shards in JP and allow players to deed their houses with items and transfere char, backpack, stable and bank to one of the new shards."
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    they only see what they WANT to see,
    there is NO chance to discuss this problem
     
  12. Der Rock

    Der Rock Guest

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    I still believe it is possible to make PvP shards for UO that stay true to the spirit of old UO as long risk is balanced vs the rewards.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    and WHAT will u do then on this PvP only server?????
    come here on stratics everyday and ask the DEV´s, how they can bring MORE
    people to ure pvp only server??
    like: remove all items from pvm server, so all have to play on pvp server if they want items? risk vs. fun???
    [​IMG]
     
  13. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well Freja, your going down the same path though splitting up rulesets via shards. I totally agree with it though. You may remember, I've posted that there should be totally different shards, PVP and PVE.....BUT

    DD's post rings of truth. The Euro shards of WoW, may be more populated with pvp, but I will refuse to agree that overall, there are more players on pvp shards than pvm shards. Unless that you can prove that wrong. I can't prove or disprove it, as I've never played WoW. But I have a hunch.

    Just look at UO. It proves that majority of players do not want to be "harrased". Siege, Felucca......all pale in comparison to Trammel populations, and always always always have and always will.

    Now, I will concede this point to you Freja, as I respect you and maybe a couple other die hard pvp'ers in the hall (very few, you one of them....congrats).....give me a shard where players can really police the game, have pvp set up where its not Barney Foo foo griefer land (like early pre tram UO was) and it would be great. And you would get a lot of people who never wanted to pvp into it. UO failed at this pretrammel. Despite a lot of the die hard pvp'ers from UHall have stated over the years. The so called "communities" were extremely shallow. Cliques more like it. And that still rings true today.

    One thing I disagree with DD on .....I think he gives the human race too much credit. I believe players will always find ways to grief and exploit game mechanics FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. He seems to believe that if you make a great in depth pvp system, that keeps power and "cliques" in check, that most players would benefit from it. I don't know. I still hold firm that people will grief and control from within their shallow communities for personal gain. It's true in all games, and it's true in real life.

    I'd have to disagree with your orignal statement though, in that this post makes early UO out worse than it was. That's why they made Trammel. Pk'ing was aweful. Not held in check, and I'm sure it was fun for the evil players, but it was not for the majority of people, who want to play in relative safety, and enjoy that game, without the molestation of irresponsible, immature players.

    Karma.

    Trammel.


    And now the die hard pvp'ers are relegated to pancakes on a forum, instead of living in a great virtual world that we could have had, if the human beast could have held themself in check. They cannot. Greed rules humanity.

    Karma.

    Trammel.

    Show me a UO shard, or any game that truely punishes anti-social behavior (while still possible mind you), while mixing playstyles, and then yes, I'll show you what UO was meant to be in the beginning.
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Post count +1 ftw!!!


    You know, the constant battles of Tram vs. Fel, and my own passionate outlook on the whole subject, makes me think.

    How would you have done it (anyone...not just you Frej)........????

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I wish it was possible to make room for all kind of players on one kind of shard but I don't believe it is possible. We had tryed for 10 years now. Lets give up and make 2 kind of shards.

    <blockquote><hr>

    How do you deal with the innability to police the game? The rampant pk'ing and griefing that went on in early UO? I can't think of a single better way than the introduction of Trammel. I know even dear designer dragon thought that "switches" suck, but, at least in today's world, it gives people a CHOICE. Choices are what a really good MMORPG are all about. Granted, the "switch" or in this case, the moongate, are rather, shall we say, superficial, but it works.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You see, for me and alot of my friends, rampant pk'ing and griefing was never a problem. We need shards where rampant pk'ing and griefing is not possible and shards where it is up to the players to control rampant pk'ing and griefing.
    Even when I never take part in rampant pk'ing and griefing I want freedom on the shard I play and I want the players to make the justice.

    <blockquote><hr>

    If you can think of a good way to truely balance these issues, without the grief that pre-Trammel UO had, ruining it for most players, you will have the next best MMORPG.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I can't. For me pre-Trammel was perfect, except the stat loss part but I know, it was a hell for alot of players. We do need two worlds, it is not possible to make all happy in one world

    <blockquote><hr>

    Honestly, I can't think of any other way than having a "switch". That "switch" could be terribly intricate though if enough thought were put into it. And I'm not getting paid to do so. To date, all developers have done it with simple "switches" like moongates, or dedicated pvm/pvp servers.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I too would hate to see a switch.

    Some other thoughts around this:

    Player base 300 to 3000 to ?:
    Large player base means the players won't get to know each others.
    On Siege, when we only had one facet, It was not easy to be an "[censored]" on Siege, because you would be known and you only had one char and a slow skill gain system, so you could not just delete and choose a new name and id.
    Now we are few but do have to much land, soulstones and name changes. It's to easy to hide now = more "****s"

    Ethics: If you can make players group up and make small community on the shards, we will see players make their own ethics rules and player justice.

    I think traveling is to easy in UO, it's far to easy to jump around the map, special with this damn blessed runebooks.

    Safe and wild zoning:
    People are mostly selfish:
    Trouble bind players together, safe zones make them more selfish.
    -limited resources that you need to cooperate over so everyone gets enough
    -an enemy you have to fight to keep out

    Well, a game with enough for everybody is a game where you don't need other people very much.
    Miners were penalized for working near each other, for example, rather than encouraged to do so.
     
  15. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    do u realy think they will understood, even if they would read it 100 times??

    [/ QUOTE ]

    LOL no I don't. Especially in the UHall. I bet most of them won't even show their faces here. I've seen most of "them" come and go over the years, because the die hard pvp'ers usually don't see the game for what it really is/was. Their own shallow greedy existance makes the game boring for them.

    Then they will cry nerf and wtf! this and wtf! that, then finally quit and go play something else for a few months. There are a few that hang in there, but their mindsets are dillusional.

    They would label me a "carebear". But they are wrong. As usual. I've PK'd. Recently. I've played UO longer than most of them. I've killed plenty of people since 1997. Not a common occurance, but it's happened. I did it if for only to take out that day's frustrations on a poor unsuspecting soul whoes only mistake was being near me. The only penalty I got was "You have been reported for a murder". Big deal.

    I often wonder after I did it, how that person felt. I know the die hards would say "It's only a game". But they fail to take into account others feelings may not be the same, and their views different. I wonder if they quit. I hope not. I've attoned for my own sins through thougtfull reflection of my actions. The typical "peekay" does not. They go LOLZ NOOB PWND YOU.


    Again, show me a shard where we can fight "evil", with a system of real checks and balances, and I'll show you what original UO was supposed to be.

    As it stands, you have THREE kinds of people. Those who want to PVP, those that DONT, and those that will do BOTH.

    I think that is DD's final flaw. While I agree with his sentiments and I think he is one of the greatest dev's ever, I think human mentality is THAT simple. I want to collect shiney's.....I want to WTF PWNZERIZE NOOBS, I want to do both.

    The end.
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Make 5 new Happy shards and 2 new Dark shards in US, one dark and one happy in EU and X happy and X dark shards in JP and allow players to deed their houses with items and transfere char, backpack, stable and bank to one of the new shards.



    [/ QUOTE ]

    Would be the best change in UO history!
     
  17. Der Rock

    Der Rock Guest

    one thing i dont understand is:

    u almost HAVE ure PVP only server(Siege and Fell everywhere)
    the PvP only player are almost alone there, BUT where are those 1000´s of 1000´ pvp player?
    where are the BIG pvp battles
    why are these places abandoned.
    something is wrong in ure argumentation or not?
     
  18. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    I wish it was possible to make room for all kind of players one one kind of shard but I don't believe it is possible. We had tryed for 10 years now. Lets give up and make 2 kind of shards.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yep, I totally agree. WoW proves this too. I believe EQ was the first to segregate the rulesets. It works. It's simple. Not what DD would have liked, but it works.

    <blockquote><hr>

    You see, for me and alot of my friends, rampant pk'ing and griefing was never a problem. We need shards where rampant pk'ing and griefing is not possible and shards where it is up to the players to control rampant pk'ing and griefing.
    Even when I never take part in rampant pk'ing and griefing I want freedom on the shard I play and I want the players to make the justice.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    hehe. You were then in a group of like minded individual's who were probably better at the game then most. Myself and most of my friends were "casuals" at the time. Most people were. The only people who didn't have the rampant pk'ing as a problem were either people who could dedicate more time to forming groups, and developing their characters, or who had totally different playstyles.

    It was rather hard for the solo player, or even the groups of casual players to bring that player justice. Some did, and I'm sure they all had fun. But I saw too many guildmates leave for EQ, where there was no pk'ing. It was sad. I hung in there, mostly because I LOVED this game (still do), and I was skilled enough either to kill my attacker, or elude them. Plus I'm big and mean enough not to take it to heart when I got killed LOL. And like I said, I killed some folks too from time to time. But I can understand the feelings of those who DO take it to heart. It ruins their gameplay.

    Thanks for sharing this article and discussing Freja [​IMG] Good travels to ya [​IMG]
     
  19. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    one thing i dont understand is:

    u almost HAVE ure PVP only server(Siege and Fell everywhere)
    the PvP only player are almost alone there, BUT where are those 1000´s of 1000´ pvp player?
    where are the BIG pvp battles
    why are these places abandoned.
    something is wrong in ure argumentation or not?

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Well, this is why:

    PVP and PVM cannot every truely coexist together, at least in today's UO peacefully. Look at the boards.

    NERF THIS
    NERF THAT!

    ITS OVERPOWERED!
    POWERSCROLLS IN TRAMMEL!
    NO!
    YES1
    I HAVE TO PAY RENT AND BUY WEED WITH MUH SALEZ OF POWERSROLLZ1!

    And so on..........lol

    You have players with around 100 to 120 HP. You have monsters with THOUSANDS of HP. What is overpowering in PVP is NOT in PVM. The shallow minded pvp'ers want to say this or that is overpowered, without taking this into consideration on how it will affect PVM. My arguement over the years is that pvm is more important than pvp, so it takes a backseat to pvm rules. The devs echo this in their actions . More items, more power....we NEED it.

    Granted, this HOSES, pvp. What works in pvm will BORK something in PVP. Not to mention having a mirror of Tram and Fel being the same world, one with trees and one without, well, really is kinda stupid, from a roleplay point of view.

    If shards were segregated, PVM'ers could have all the powerscrolls they wanted, and so on. BOTH playstyles would be and could be more balanced than they ever will be while they are together.

    There is a drawback though. It takes away a choice. The choice to pvp today or not. To go to Felucca or not. That would be a loss.

    Of course, this could be countered with some sort of travel system. Like a shard transfer, but free. FREE EA! I said free.

    OR:

    You could still separate damage calculations and rules for each playstyle within Tram and Fel as we have now, oh like say, with removing insurance from Felucca altogether. I've been a proponent of that for a long time too. When traveling from one facet or shard to the other ruleset, you would get a gump warning you that all your lootz were now uninsured. Get naked before crossing. Or something.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    One statement is very very true (and that's why I do not play on Siege, although I like PvP):

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Sure Siege do have alot of wolves but that's not the problem on Siege. Something killed our anti guilds, the risk vs reward is not balanced. It was not a problem at the start of Siege. We had alot more wolves or maybe we have to many wolves in sheep's clothing now.
    In the past, PK's was red, now it is possible to be blue and PK, factions and guildwars. I think something went wrong with all the new PvP systems they somewhat hurt the community.

    Siege did draw alot of players before they decided to make it an advance shard. Siege do not prove DD's word as Siege is not just a PvP server. Alot could be done to changes Siege to a PvP shard, that can draw lost PvP players back to UO

    Some thoughs of mine
    Remove "One char only"
    Tweak RoT so it do not take 6 months to build a char.
    Add Siege to the shard list for new UO players.
    Make Siege less item based.
    Remove the 3x vendor prices/ PV vendor fee and 10x classic house, boat and deeds prices.
    Remove factions taxes from non factions vendors in factions towns to help the community around npc towns
    Make fights last longer. Both players and monsters die to easy now. Maybe increase hitpoints and limit healing.
    Remove Pet bonding but allow Siege Bless to be used to bond one pet.
    Allow pets to be sold on PC vendors as deeds that only can be claimed at the stable and if the player do have the skills to own the pet.
    Increase bank storing or add second small houses that need refresh
    Only allow one blessed runebook on the char. It could be done with a runebook bless like the Siege Bless.
    Or unbless all and let players keep runebooks in bank or as locked down in houses. Allow one blessed home rune to favorite town or a house the player are friended too.
    Add more public gates away from towns.
    Make stealthers walk, even if in forms, players running around invisible make the shard look like a desert.
    Remove private housing on Siege and remove limets from co-owner setting.
    Remove instance corpes from Siege and add back going grey if looting something without looting rights
    Add red healers on all facets
    Bless tinker tools, regular shovels and other non combat crafted tools. This will help roleplayers like Shadowclan Orcs, who want to survive in the wilderness, crafting what they need in a world without Item Insurance.
     
  21. Full disclosure: I spend almost all my time these days in Trammel-ruleset facets.

    <blockquote><hr>

    Show me a UO shard, or any game that truely punishes anti-social behavior (while still possible mind you), while mixing playstyles, and then yes, I'll show you what UO was meant to be in the beginning.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I think that we're running up against what DD wanted UO to be, and what actually got designed. (And, as you've noted, what DD wants people to be like, and what people actually are like online.) In the game where communities can--and do--consensually choose to be Virtuous (or at least to police non-Virtuous behavior), we wouldn't need Trammel. We might need some other crutches to reward good behavior (establishing computer-guarded areas where players have consistently fought back the bad guys, for example, or providing cooperation bonuses for resource gathering), but any advantages gained would be advantages won.

    Ultimately, I think Trammel was a bit of an Alexandrian solution to a Gordian knot. We had the inability to create lasting safety through player conduct, plus the general inclination of people to be less than Virtuous (or at least selfish), plus the tendency of communities to self-destruct, all contributing to a proliferation of griefers--or at least a general feeling that players alone couldn't combat them.

    Perhaps it's appropriate that (as per in-game fiction) Trammel was created because the good guys just couldn't win in Felucca.
     
  22. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>


    one thing i dont understand is:

    u almost HAVE ure PVP only server(Siege and Fell everywhere)
    the PvP only player are almost alone there, BUT where are those 1000´s of 1000´ pvp player?
    where are the BIG pvp battles
    why are these places abandoned.
    something is wrong in ure argumentation or not?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    First of all, siege isn't really what could be called a pvp server if you ask me. It's just different.

    A pvp server wouldn't have all the restrictions that siege has and normal shards do not. It would be more like an "abyss" style shard, which by the way was massively popular. And it would probably either have blessings, or very easy access to all gear. People wouldn't be crafting and pvming like we do on siege.
     
  23. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Make 5 new Happy shards and 2 new Dark shards in US, one dark and one happy in EU and X happy and X dark shards in JP and allow players to deed their houses with items and transfere char, backpack, stable and bank to one of the new shards.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Would be the best change in UO history!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yes, it would not only give us a new start on a server with a ruleset of our choice, it would also clean up the up the mess on old shards and add a new way to store inactive accounts so their ghost houses not block for new players.
    Evt make players pay a $10 each 6 months to keep the stored backup of their stored house deed, bankbox and stable for more than 6 months on a inactive account.
    Right now, alot pay each 3 month to keep their house, even when they do not play. This would free up alot of house land for active players.
     
  24. "I don't know how it is for US-WOW serverers but for the English EU servers, PvP have far the higest population."

    We've covered this before. WoW's US PvM servers far out-populate the PvP ones. FAR out-populate.
     
  25. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing I should note: I guess I take this opportunity to give a neener neener to the die hard Uhaller's ....that thought pvp is the bee's knee's of UO, however, I do respect the pvp playstyle. There is very much a place for it.

    I don't want to come off sounding like pvp should be deleted, or that all pvp'ers are griefers or losers, just most of them LOL :p

    Nah, not most of them. hehehe

    I simply defend the majority of UO players who have been labeled "care bears" or "trammeis" over the years by the one track minded jack holes.

    I also must appologize for any spelling errors on any of my posts in this thread; been working on a laptop, and the little freaking keyboard does not pay homage to my giant MEATPOKERS.
     
  26. powerscroll on trammel! [​IMG]
     
  27. Arcus

    Arcus Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    107
    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    [/ QUOTE ]



    Checkmate.



    It's only the same thing me and a thousand other "Care bears" have been saying for years now. For all who whine about a classic shard, or think player conflict was the bee's knee's of UO, read this article, then read it again and again till it sinks in.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    First off, read the first three words "I still believe" which means this is his opinion.

    Second, this was said 8 years ago. Times have changed. Markets have changed.

    There is no checkmate for you bub.

    Reference: WoW has PvP servers that are doing quite fine. If done right there is a market for a wolf only server. If done really right, some lambs may come too. Which is EXACTLY what WoW has. No checkmate for you.
     
  28. Arcus

    Arcus Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    107
    <blockquote><hr>

    "I don't know how it is for US-WOW serverers but for the English EU servers, PvP have far the higest population."

    We've covered this before. WoW's US PvM servers far out-populate the PvP ones. FAR out-populate.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Link?
     
  29. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    hehe. You were then in a group of like minded individual's who were probably better at the game then most. Myself and most of my friends were "casuals" at the time. Most people were. The only people who didn't have the rampant pk'ing as a problem were either people who could dedicate more time to forming groups, and developing their characters, or who had totally different playstyles.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I don't know if I was better than most. My son came home with the game and I was amazed of this wonderful virtuel world where I could do everything.
    I could not play a lot, paid alot for my Internet, think arount $1 an hour and I was alone with 2 kids at 13 and 17 years so I could only affort 1-3 hours playtime a day.
    Second, I was 42 years and female so most 20 years old boys would own me in PvP.
    I think it was my playstyle that was different. I made friends, also between the local reds. I did not cry or complain when I died so I earned alot respect from both red and blue.
    I did not really die alot, and the reds did learn me to survive in PvP so I did not die to easy.

    <blockquote><hr>

    It was rather hard for the solo player, or even the groups of casual players to bring that player justice. Some did, and I'm sure they all had fun. But I saw too many guildmates leave for EQ, where there was no pk'ing. It was sad. I hung in there, mostly because I LOVED this game (still do), and I was skilled enough either to kill my attacker, or elude them. Plus I'm big and mean enough not to take it to heart when I got killed LOL. And like I said, I killed some folks too from time to time. But I can understand the feelings of those who DO take it to heart. It ruins their gameplay.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I don't know, I was a solo player but did find someone at the bank to join up with to be safe in numbers when going to dungeons. I was never aggressive in PvP unless I got mad at someone but I think I did well defending myself and keeping backup gear to replace lost items.

    <blockquote><hr>

    Thanks for sharing this article and discussing Freja [​IMG] Good travels to ya [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You welcome. I can see we do agree alot.
     
  30. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Three lines leap out at me:

    Someday we WILL be able to hand over the reins of policing to players.

    One of my biggest disappointments in UO is that we never found a way to have the good guys win.

    Thinking crazily into the future--the above point matters a lot to me because I do think that we will have virtual spaces where there's no admins to call.

    The fundamental problem is that (without a Fel/Tram split) if you want to create a peaceful land, a good land, you can't. You can PK the PKer, but you can't remove them from the game, you can't confine them to a spawn area, you can't boot another player from your server. Besides, the PKer will always have an experience advantage in PvP over the non-PKer because, well, one likes PKing and one doesn't. So the game, by its design, will degenerate into endless gang warfare, with no "good", just tribal loyalties that may or may not have some roleplaying focus. That's not a heroic game to me.
     
  31. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I always felt (and still do) that a lot of problems were started when Tram allowed players to run away from their problems, rather than face up to them. Yeah I know the Tram fans will be readying their flamethrowers, but please try and read the rest of my post before you bite me [​IMG]

    UO for me mirrors RL. Overcoming a challenge makes us stronger, if mom or dad fixes the problem for us we become weaker. If we can scarper away from conflict/adversity rather than learn to deal with it, we do not really develop for the better. We just learn to cry and have someone "make it all better".

    Remember other kids from when you were young? The ones who ran to mum and those who stood on their own two feet. Which were looked upon better? As an only child people often asked if I was therefore spoilt, it's always been clear to me that spoiling is considered bad for kids. Yet I feel like in UO it's the norm nowadays. That's the main reason why I never welcomed Tram and felt it was the start of a bad trend in UO.

    I fully realise that many players think Tram saved UO, and how it kept players in game. That's a fair comment. I also know many left because of Tram and AoS. We can never say for certain what would have happened if our history was written differently.

    When Tram opened up, I remember an almost instant exodus. Nobody ever tried to correct that properly. Factions were good for a while, but PvP is one aspect of UO gameplay. EA seemed to decide Fel was solely for PvP, that few players wanted to engage in it, and thus 90% of the development time was spent on Tram ruleset areas. To heck with those of us who *lived* in Fel and tried to run communities there.

    Over the years, players have become increasingly reluctant to take risks, to venture to Fel. They want reward but not risk. They don't want Fel players to even get the same content as them. That says a lot about the state of our so-called community. I've seen interest in visiting Fel decline to about zero. A whole facet that not 1 dev seems keen to work with.

    The turnaround for UO in my view is if the devs realise the benefit in making us players stand up for ourselves again. Giving us reason to use Fel properly again and adding features for all playstyles in Fel. Protecting innocents there with a new and improved reputation system. Give us reason to fight murderers, give us new dungeons now the old ones have been turned over to champ spawns. Allow RP towns to have their own town stones so we can set up safe player havens as and when required. Let those of us who've run player towns have the tools to bring both facets' players together.

    Just make Fel a proper facet again. We'll never have community if we can't pull Fel and Tram together. I know if players were given the "all tram" or "all fel" choices it would simply continue the barren aspect of Fel. So I want to see a dev (or more!) step up to the challenge and unite the facets under the banner of "UO player".

    /novel :p

    Wenchy
     
  32. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still in denial eh Arcus?

    I'll make this as simple as I can for you. Read the post from DD. Then, reflect on how many people went over to Trammel when it was created. Remember the people who left when EQ was made? Consentual pvp for the win?

    Look how many people populate Felucca FROM THE BEGINNING to now. Look at Siege.

    If you cannot get it through that thick thick head of yours that the majority of human beings, in any game, on planet Earth, PREFER secure zones where they cannot be griefed, or HAVE to pvp, then you are truely lost.

    CHECKMATE.

    Admit your loss. You'll be a bigger man for it. The proof is ALLLLL around you in UO bud, and it always has been. People like you are just to damn blind to see it or admit it.
     
  33. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    "I don't know how it is for US-WOW serverers but for the English EU servers, PvP have far the higest population."

    We've covered this before. WoW's US PvM servers far out-populate the PvP ones. FAR out-populate.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Link?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Go to the WoW homepage. You can see the server population for yourself.
     
  34. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a side note, I suppose myself and the VAST majority of UO players over the years should be thanking people with mindsets like your's. After all, it is this mindset that created Trammel in the first place [​IMG]

    I thank thee.
     
  35. Arcus

    Arcus Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    107
    <blockquote><hr>

    Still in denial eh Arcus?

    I'll make this as simple as I can for you. Read the post from DD. Then, reflect on how many people went over to Trammel when it was created. Remember the people who left when EQ was made? Consentual pvp for the win?

    Look how many people populate Felucca FROM THE BEGINNING to now. Look at Siege.

    If you cannot get it through that thick thick head of yours that the majority of human beings, in any game, on planet Earth, PREFER secure zones where they cannot be griefed, or HAVE to pvp, then you are truely lost.

    CHECKMATE.

    Admit your loss. You'll be a bigger man for it. The proof is ALLLLL around you in UO bud, and it always has been. People like you are just to damn blind to see it or admit it.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    *Sigh* Read the words. He was talking about resources and use of those resources in the creation and upkeep of a PvP server / area / ruleset . Lets try again. He is what YOU quoted:

    <blockquote><hr>

    I still believe that running servers themed around PvP or not is also a bit of a waste of time. The amount of wolves who want to play on a wolf-only server is way smaller than the total amount of wolves, and generally speaking, wolf-only servers are extremely underpopulated. You might as well devote those resources elsewhere.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    See?? He is talking about the technical and resource assignment vs. the financial gain NOT psychological aspect of PvP. Do you not even understand what that you quoted? As usual you want to spin this quote into something beyond what it was originally about. Like I said earlier , this was 8 years ago. Times have changed.

    I like PvP. I love PvM. I like them both combined as well. They both have a place. There is nothing for me to get through my think head. I admit I suck at PvP, I try and have fun. Ive had my triumphs in UO PvP. The majority of my time has been PvM. I get it.

    One more thing:

    <blockquote><hr>

    If you cannot get it through that thick thick head of yours that the majority of human beings, in any game, on planet Earth, PREFER secure zones where they cannot be griefed, or HAVE to pvp, then you are truely lost.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Quake , Quake 3 , Halo , Halo 2 , Half-Life , RTCW ..the list goes on and on. Any game? Thats quite a broad brush you paint with. Any game huh? *rolls eyes*
     
  36. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    UO for me mirrors RL. Overcoming a challenge makes us stronger, if mom or dad fixes the problem for us we become weaker. If we can scarper away from conflict/adversity rather than learn to deal with it, we do not really develop for the better. We just learn to cry and have someone "make it all better".

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well, that's all well and good. But think of this. If UO were to mirror real life, and we really wanted to merge playstyles, what would need to happen?

    In real life, if you kill someone, you will either be executed or imprisoned for life. Going along these lines, the proper coarse of action would be to either keep the PK from playing their character that they Pk'd with for a week, or deleteing that character alltogether.

    I really don't see it as people running from their problems. I saw people migrating to Trammel in droves because they knew they could enjoy the game they pay for, in their style, without putting up with game flaws. That flaw being the game allowing for anti-social behavior on a grave scale.

    I know that people left when Tram was made. I also know that pre tram there were many who left because they were sick of getting killed all the time.

    *shrug*

    I know pvp can be fun, exiting. I admit there is not a time in all my gametime that I've never had blood pumping more than in a fight with another player. But know this, not everyone enjoys that. And people like me who respect the playstyle, and even like to play that way theirself at times, don't want to be forced in doing it all the time as a normal way of gameplay. Trammel gave the choice. Choices are good.

    The only debate left anymore is should they make pvp servers? Should they just keep the Tram/Fel split? Should they get rid of insurance in Fel? What needs to be added to pvp to make it more worthwhile?

    I know pvp has been ignored, mostly because all the resources have gone into bettering the game for the majority of PVM playstyles, as it should. But, that doesn't mean that PVP should be ignored for years on end like it was.

    At least they are speaking of faction overhauls coming soon!
     
  37. Arcus

    Arcus Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    107
    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    "I don't know how it is for US-WOW serverers but for the English EU servers, PvP have far the higest population."

    We've covered this before. WoW's US PvM servers far out-populate the PvP ones. FAR out-populate.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Link?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Go to the WoW homepage. You can see the server population for yourself.

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Check for yourself here . PvP servers look like they are doing just fine to me. And might I remind you that his statement was NOT about soley about PvM vs. PvP. It was about the value of having PvP servers at all. As you can clearly see, it IS worth it.

    Why are you guys arguing about this anyway? Since you seem to despise Fel so much wouldn't the sudden exodus of PvP play style people to a different server just make your PvP vs. PvM split even more complete?
     
  38. "PvP servers look like they are doing just fine to me"

    I never said they weren't. I said the PvM servers outpopulated them in the US.


    "Since you seem to despise Fel so much wouldn't the sudden exodus of PvP play style people to a different server just make your PvP vs. PvM split even more complete? "

    I'm not arguing that point at all. Not one bit. I'd love to have the servers split, unfortunately I don't see that happening.
     
  39. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh my god man. Do you have any friends?

    Spin? The only spin I see is coming from you.

    Ask yourself WHY would it be a waste of RESOURCES to run those shards? Why would it be a waste of resources to run those shards. Why would it be a waste of resources to run those shards. Because there are less wolf-only playstyles. Because there are less wolf-only playstyles. Because there are less wolf-only playstyles.

    Times have changed? Fel is still barren. Siege is still barren. Still barren. Still barren.


    Your trying to spin this into something totally different. One would think you could conclude that from the PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect of how people play MMORPG's, that it would be a waste of time and effort to put RESOURCES into a pvp only server.


    <blockquote><hr>

    Quake , Quake 3 , Halo , Halo 2 , Half-Life , RTCW ..the list goes on and on. Any game? Thats quite a broad brush you paint with. Any game huh? *rolls eyes*

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How many of those are MMORPG's? You do realize that's what we are talking about here right? MMORPG's.

    Read Designer Dragons post again. And again. And again.

    Besides, what was your point in this thread anyway other than to troll? Oh yes, you did not have one. Only to troll. Only to troll. Only to troll.

    Back to the Brittany Spears of MMORPG forums with ye!
     
  40. <blockquote><hr>

    Over the years, players have become increasingly reluctant to take risks, to venture to Fel. They want reward but not risk. They don't want Fel players to even get the same content as them. That says a lot about the state of our so-called community. I've seen interest in visiting Fel decline to about zero. A whole facet that not 1 dev seems keen to work with.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    While I take exception to the idea that players don't want Felucca in general to get the same content as Trammel-ruleset facets (I think they're more averse to reds getting that content, and Felucca player != red, I'd hope), I do agree that players (me included) prefer to get more reward for less risk. 'Course, it's probably simple economics at work there, but there it is.

    <blockquote><hr>

    The turnaround for UO in my view is if the devs realise the benefit in making us players stand up for ourselves again.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I think that DD's contention that the "good guys can't win" is spot on. The problem, in my eyes, is not that players seek better rewards and lower risk, but that we must depend on the devs to create enduring lower risk situations. Players did stand up for themselves before Trammel, but the resulting peace was guaranteed to last only until the bad guys resurrected themselves or until a critical mass of the good guys logged out for the night--a poor reward for their efforts. We don't, after all, have to worry about barbarian hordes wandering the streets as soon as we go in for dinner. (Except maybe in Cleveland. Yeah, yeah--I kid!)

    I had the privilege of visiting fairly well-guarded towns on Lake Superior in their heyday (Rivendell and Destiny come to mind), but even in these towns there were often problems with maintaining a guard presence. For anyone who wanted to focus on something other than killing reds, Trammel was an appealing alternative.

    Allowing players to create safe zones in Felucca is one good idea. I wonder, though, if we'd just end up with Felucca completely paved over with townstones. [​IMG]
     
  41. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spinman. I hope this gets out before you post again because you'll just spin it around to make it seem I'm saying something I'm not.

    DD was speaking of UO, in that it was a waste to make pvp only servers. I know that WoW, EQ, and even UO "pvp" servers have people who love to do that kind of thing. Nobody here said different. I know this has to be spelled out in finer print for you Arcus. Otherwise you'll start making more vague generalizations.

    Now, given the fact that the majority, at least in UO that we can PROVE, like non pvp gameplay, it would have been a waste of time developing any pvp shards. This still holds somewhat true. You could argue that if you made a great pvp server, many would come back, which they should.

    My point was that there are more PVM playstyles in most if not all, (esp. UO...these are UO forums....*looks up* yep ...UO) than there are PVP playstyles. Thus making the idea that Trammel killed UO, Wrong wrong Wrong wrong Wrong.

    That bolded part was the driving force behind any of my posts debunking the l335t pvp'ers that go around claiming Trammel killed UO.
     
  42. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    one thing i dont understand is:

    u almost HAVE ure PVP only server(Siege and Fell everywhere)
    the PvP only player are almost alone there, BUT where are those 1000´s of 1000´ pvp player?
    where are the BIG pvp battles
    why are these places abandoned.
    something is wrong in ure argumentation or not?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    They are all on a free shard that is mostly pre aos without tram. A friend of mine plays one of these and when he showed me how many people were playin my mouth dropped on the floor. Every city was filled there were more player towns than game towns, dungeons were filled. I have never seen so many people in my 10 years on EA/UO than what I have seen on this shard there were way more blues then reds and only safe areas were gaurd zones and houses (if you lock your door :p). To me that is a real sign that if they made a Fell only production shard it would be successful.

    People Dont play siege cuase of RoT, and some of the rules like inflated supplies. Its too hard for a noob char now days to start w/o any help. not to mention in an item based game thnx to AOS and the way properties are distributed most pvpers need insurance. With lack of proper gear while PvP remains competive other activitys become too hard to impossible in the PvM part of things destroying the balance for a successful shard. Its not fun if a critter gives something of great value if it one hit kills ya due to lack of proper gear. pre aos it was not much of an issue while from aos to today it is. So useing the population of siege as a defence to sayin no to a fell production shard is to weak of an argument.
     
  43. *Shrug* Toned way down and as he (DD) said, it was after he left UO and was working at Verant on SWG.

    And for the record, that is a very very very subdued DD speaking there versus when he was driving the bus at UO.

    It may seem that I do not like DD, that is NOT the case. We had profound differences over what COULD constitute "Evil". This article seemingly indicates he has moved far closer to me than the last time we talked.

    What follows is my opinion(s).

    DD was more right than wrong, BUT he (and some that still post) are totaly blinded to the a real problem in this. The REAL Socially challenged individuals that use online games to pursue their addiction to anonymous bad .... bad behavior. These are not good people Role Playing Evil, these are truly, seriously socially challenged individuals. The can range from the early 20's couple in Vegas that left their 2 year old child unfed and unchanged for days on end while they played EQ to individuals that hacked into systems to find the real identity of individuals they were online harassing to take it to real life harassment.

    The continued denial of this social problem in Online games will absolutely insure the inability to ever bring about a self policing (Dev's and Employees are more akin to forces of nature, unseen and no direct interaction) game. In a game WE do not posses the ability to deal with such individuals (and we don't have the ability to determine they are or are not).

    Even reading some of the post's here reflect that the same Blind Eye is present. One can say that one is less that they are because they choose to not stand up and resolve their problems. BUT the reality is they may not see the Game as a reflection of reality. They may see it as simple entertainment and as such problems with people are NOT what they are paying to be able to deal with. This in no way demeans or reflects negatively on them. It simply reflects a difference in why they are paying out their subscription dollars.

    Before I left UO, I made an example ....

    You have two Football fields, you have N number of people.

    Some want to play hard core tackle, bruise and break the bones football. Some want to play touch Football(no tackle etc).

    They split into two groups.

    The larger group decides to play Touch Football and form teams and are having a great time.

    The remaining group try to play Hardcore Football, but it just isnt working for them. They decided to give it up and go to the other group.

    PROBLEM IS ... they then insist that tackling, bruising, breaking bones etc is in fact TOUCH FOOTBALL. They then proceed to tell the group how they are just a bunch of .......

    Until the "Good" PvPrs lose this Blind Eye and STOP hiding/protecting the Socially challenged PvPr they will never ever get what they want. As long as they accept them as part of their own, they will never ever get the numbers they need to make a balanced community.
     
  44. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    UO for me mirrors RL. Overcoming a challenge makes us stronger, if mom or dad fixes the problem for us we become weaker. If we can scarper away from conflict/adversity rather than learn to deal with it, we do not really develop for the better. We just learn to cry and have someone "make it all better".

    Remember other kids from when you were young? The ones who ran to mum and those who stood on their own two feet. Which were looked upon better? As an only child people often asked if I was therefore spoilt, it's always been clear to me that spoiling is considered bad for kids. Yet I feel like in UO it's the norm nowadays. That's the main reason why I never welcomed Tram and felt it was the start of a bad trend in UO.


    [/ QUOTE ]
    UO doesn't mirror RL. That's a poor mirror. It has too many cracks to compare and you know that as well as anyone else.

    You must never have ran into Derek, the Samoan wonder-bully, when you were a kid. I stood up to him, once. There is no standing up to zerg guilds that have dominated the game for half a decade. YOu think it is? Go to a new server and take them on. Please take screenies. We'd all like to see it. Join them or cry. Standing up is not an option.


    This next part I have to split up:

    <blockquote><hr>

    When Tram opened up, I remember an almost instant exodus.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Followed shortly by:

    <blockquote><hr>

    EA seemed to decide Fel was solely for PvP, that few players wanted to engage in it

    [/ QUOTE ]
    I don't remember EA mandating everyone move to Trammel. Seems to me I moved all on my own accord. It wasn't the PvP that caused me to move either. Please keep in mind I'm not saying Trammel was a good way to create a needed safety land and more housing but it wasn't forced on anyone. Anyone that lived in fel still had all the luxuries they had previously. Those who were forced to live together for protection were given another choice they had not had previously however. The choice to live without fear and the ability to play the game solo if they so wished. While I know there a whole host of people who would be more than happy to explain that the M in MMO stands for multiplayer I can assure them all there are plenty of players who don't care. I run one of the biggest guilds in UO and I like to play by myself on occasion.


    <blockquote><hr>

    Over the years, players have become increasingly reluctant to take risks, to venture to Fel. They want reward but not risk. They don't want Fel players to even get the same content as them. That says a lot about the state of our so-called community. I've seen interest in visiting Fel decline to about zero. A whole facet that not 1 dev seems keen to work with.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    That's funny. I go to fel and see people every time I go and my shard is a lower pop one. Dunno what to tell ya here. What do you want a dev to do there? Add carrots? That only works for a very short period of time. If fel wants to stand on it's own 2 feet pvp needs to change, not the facets.

    <blockquote><hr>

    The turnaround for UO in my view is if the devs realise the benefit in making us players stand up for ourselves again. Giving us reason to use Fel properly again and adding features for all playstyles in Fel. Protecting innocents there with a new and improved reputation system. Give us reason to fight murderers, give us new dungeons now the old ones have been turned over to champ spawns. Allow RP towns to have their own town stones so we can set up safe player havens as and when required. Let those of us who've run player towns have the tools to bring both facets' players together.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    This is golden. The mechanics don't exist for it but it's golden.

    <blockquote><hr>

    Just make Fel a proper facet again. We'll never have community if we can't pull Fel and Tram together. I know if players were given the "all tram" or "all fel" choices it would simply continue the barren aspect of Fel. So I want to see a dev (or more!) step up to the challenge and unite the facets under the banner of "UO player".

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You should know this will never happen because all it will accomplish is the fel rulset being in place. There is no other way to join them. Forced community =! good community. There is no stepping up to forcing someone to play in a manner they don't enjoy.
     
  45. Der Rock

    Der Rock Guest

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    They are all on a free shard that is mostly pre aos without tram. ........
    ...
    People Dont play siege cuase of RoT, and some of the rules like inflated supplies. Its too hard for a noob char now days to start w/o any help...... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    1.U name it by ure self.... called FREE shards, IT IS for free,
    people dont pay ea, will u defend such player?
    (and a side note.:wasn´t E..Y.UO for free shards in the first??
    are free shards not a conglomerate of scripter and banned player which CANT play any game without cheats? nor own any game in original?

    and

    2.is siege not known for his big "community"????
    a community u all miss so much ,a community u had pre tram?? ??????

    [​IMG]
     
  46. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hmmm...I get from that article that he is talking less about a "game" per se and more about the dream of creating true virtual realities with all the complex social interactions of the real world. We can't just turn off our "PvP flag" whenever we choose in the real world. But as he says, online games are primarily a BUSINESS venture, selling a product to a customer, and people want entertainment. They don't necessarily want to explore the nuances of human nature, and gain insight into the psyche of others and their own as well. Leveling games with "safe" areas may be in a constant flux in terms of population as people become bored, but it seems they can also be incredibly profitable as a large number of people are constantly willing to try the experience, have their fun, and leave, much like any other form of casual entertainment we spend our money on. What you really have in those cases though, is less of an online community and more of people passing each other on the street - acquaintances as he terms it. And those types of interactions are a dime a dozen, not something we really treasure for the most part.

    I think he is saying that a large problem of PvP in online games is that the ones who engage in what is generally accepted as bad behavior in the real world, are winning...always winning.

    It all comes down to ones personal reasons and goals for participating in an online game. Trying to play a game against its design intent is going to be an exercise in frustration. The big problem for companies developing these games though, seems to be deciding on what will work as a successful business venture by also fulfilling the personal reasons/goals for playing of potential customers.

    It is a technology driven change in paradigm for social opportunities. Twenty years ago no one would have thought about using the computer as a means of satisfying, meaningful social interaction with others, except maybe for penpal type correspondence. Technology is pushing the limits of what is possible, but the other side of the coin is, do people really need or want to have those natural needs for social interaction satisfied through a virtual medium, and can such ventures ever be really successful with all the "safety nets" removed, because the real world sure isn't.

    Interesting stuff.

    -Skylark
     
  47. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    The turnaround for UO in my view is if the devs realise the benefit in making us players stand up for ourselves again. Giving us reason to use Fel properly again and adding features for all playstyles in Fel. Protecting innocents there with a new and improved reputation system. Give us reason to fight murderers, give us new dungeons now the old ones have been turned over to champ spawns. Allow RP towns to have their own town stones so we can set up safe player havens as and when required. Let those of us who've run player towns have the tools to bring both facets' players together.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    hehhe what they should do and far more easy is delete the dungeon champspawns and leave them all in t2a. [​IMG]
     
  48. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Go to the WoW homepage. You can see the server population for yourself.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I can see there is alot more PvP'ers on the EU servers than the US servers. Maybe EU really need a UO PvP shard [​IMG]

    <pre>WOW Normal PvP RP RPPvP
    EU 79 122 20 15
    US 102 101 15 6
    </pre>
    EU
    US

    Also in EU, more PvP servers are fillet than Normal servers.
    In US more Normal servers are fillet than PvP servers.
     
  49. Stigmatas

    Stigmatas Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    2,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not trying to argue with you about pvp, pvm, or freeshards, so pls don't take this post that way:


    I just needed to state my ideas about the existence of freeshards. Now I know they exist in probably three forms, pvp, pvm, and both. I'd argue (like I have been) that the pvm playstyle would be more popular. But nobody can prove or disprove that without researching it. It's just my hypothesis. I also know that I've read that the most popular freeshard is PVP, maybe it is, maybe it's not. Maybe there are more pvm shards out there that would eclipse the amount of pvp players on these freeshards. Who knows. Just food for thought.

    My point though is this. What if all these freeshards closed down? You must realize, especially in todays world economy, that a MAJOR reason people play freeshards, is because they are free! Imagine how many people we could have on production shards. Take all the #'s of people who play these freeshards and compare it to SWG, EQ, even WoW. UO is still very much competitive.

    If only they could close down the freeshards. Now, I'm the type of person who appreciates free crap, and I understand people's money problems, but it pains me to see these subscription numbers go down, sometimes up, when I know UO could possibly have, oh say, 500K subs (maybe lots lots more) if freeshards were done away with.

    Freeshards are the bane of UO. The blue collar man in me loves the fact that these players are "stickin it to the man" and enjoying UO in whatever state it is in on their freeshard. But the die hard UO subscriber for 10 years (UO patriot...if you will) wants to label these people as traitors, and have them shut down, thus adding the inevitable subscription numbers and revenue to UO's development.