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

If World of Warcraft won't do it, I doubt UO will either

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Guest, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Earlier today a post was made on the WoW General Forums asking for a Classic Pre-Expansion server. Not long after, the OP received a post from someone on the Dev team with this response;

    "We were at one time internally discussing the possibility fairly seriously, but the long term interest in continued play on them couldn't justify the extremely large amount of development and support resources it would take to implement and maintain them. We'd effectively be developing and supporting two different games."

    You can find the entire post Here

    Thoughts?
     
  2. minor phrasing point:
    can't and won't are two different kinds of no.

    that WoW wants to avoid serving two different client formats Like Uo does (3 actually Siege/Mugen also add in)
    could have been arrived at by them themselves in debate
    OR
    Learned yet another thing FROM UO ...
    [​IMG]
    just saying ...

    minor phrasing point:
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    minor phrasing point:
    can't and won't are two different kinds of no.

    that WoW wants to avoid serving two different client formats Like Uo does (3 actually Siege/Mugen also add in)
    could have been arrived at by them themselves in debate
    OR
    Learned yet another thing FROM UO ...
    [​IMG]
    just saying ...

    minor phrasing point:

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Good point. Changed it.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    This really won't solve the debate since both are two very different games each with their own problems. I just felt it was interesting and brought it up.
     
  5. Babble

    Babble Guest

    Well EQ and DAoC both made Classic servers and I guess it made a profit for them.

    WOW has no necessity, UO probably neither as such servers already exist.
     
  6. Aye ...no resolution of the debate ...
    Oh well! [​IMG]

    Pretty strong "point" as regards time and money and "will"
    Lets face it ...WoW apparently should have the Money available ..

    pffft! maybe even money to waste ...

    We'd effectively be developing and supporting two different games.

    "Here" it would be: We'd effectively be developing and supporting 4 different clients ... 2D, KR, Siege/Mugen, retro.

    Aye ...no resolution of the debate ...
    Oh well! [​IMG]

    (Note: using the "edited topic" [​IMG] thx)
     
  7. What I find amusing is that there are more active players on the big classic shards than there are on EA production shards. How you like them apples, EA?
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Because they're free. Doubt that many players would be playing them if they had to pay a monthly fee for every account there.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Because they're free. Doubt that many players would be playing them if they had to pay a monthly fee for every account there.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    No. They would pay double. Don't ya read the forums?
     
  10. I think players would come back just for the feeling of stability. With a freeshard, you never know when the owner will just go "ok, I'm tired of this. Shutting down the server."

    Granted, most of the big ones have been up for a long time, but there is still that feeling that it could end at any moment.
     
  11. Babble

    Babble Guest

    Maybe, but it seems EA thinks not enough customers for such a shard.

    Maybe when they move KR ahead they consider such a shard with 2d and no continued development.
     
  12. RedEmbers

    RedEmbers Guest

    Wow doesn't need any classic servers at all,they only have 1 expansion.All a person needs to do is not buy the xpac and not go to the Outlands or buy goods from the outlands,not very hard really.You can also find guilds on servers that are focused on the original dungeons instead of TBC stuff.
     
  13. Toguro

    Toguro Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    Because they're free. Doubt that many players would be playing them if they had to pay a monthly fee for every account there.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    If they have a computer and pay for internet Im sure 10 bucks a month isnt that hard to stretch for a hobby

    they play freeshards because of the ruleset/era its based in, not the 10$ price tag from EA
     
  14. Surgeries

    Surgeries Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    6,107
    Likes Received:
    92
    <blockquote><hr>

    No. They would pay double. Don't ya read the forums?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Double?? Triple, is what I heard...AND the people playing would do all the work, too!!

    After all...there are MILLIONS of them...maybe even BILLIONS that want it...

    Surprising, it is, to me, that 8 YEARS of all that money from that high qualty clientele of millions or billions of players just gets plain over-looked, by every company out there.

    Surprising, indeed....[​IMG]
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ...

    Imagine how many rulesets would have to be maintained if UO opened a "classic" shard for everyone's different idea of what defines "classic".

    Now imagine all of the ADDITIONAL calls for "classic shards of classic shards" as issues crop up and are "fixed" on those shards. and so on and so on.

    Still though. It'd be nice to see a different "test" shard be available from time to time to test various theories from month to month (with or without the insta-stat commands)...

    - a classic test shard
    - a KR-only test shard
    - a mandatory Factions test shard
    - ?

    Maybe run them for a few months apiece and change to a new one... who knows.

    It'd be interesting from a feedback standpoint IMO.
     
  16. <blockquote><hr>

    That there are about 50 old style servers out there.
    True it would need maybe 100 hours of work, maybe 200.
    But would be possible.

    But if EA could support it is something different.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What do people consider as an old style server? I think they want to go back to the old rules.You could pretty easily reach them by removing insurance, increasing the resist bonus for exceptional items so that a full GM armor reach 60+ resists and make all facets felucca rules.

    You don't need for that to maintain another client.
     
  17. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you need a test server for the classic shards? What would you add to them besides server events?

    This is the issue with classic shards. It's obvious there are two main classic ideas:
    -No trammel/felucca world split
    -No Age of Shadows Item changes and anything else forward of this.

    A classic shard (as much as I support them) would go stale fast. Why? Because the current developers (I say this in all respect) just don't know Ultima. Why do I say that? Have a look at UO's recent track record. No morals involved with the game world. Social gameplay is constantly evolving into the endless item grinds/collections and NPC filled gameplay we see in other games. Elves. Samurai Empire, item properties, raid dungeons, no sense of a virtual world. Static world factors. The list goes on.

    This is Ultima:

    http://web.archive.org/web/19970607201559/www.owo.com/town/interview.html


    Unfortunately those 2 guys are now heading Tabula Rasa. Ultima lives only in name. Stygian Abyss is the first expansion since Lord Blackthorn's Revenge that is actually going to abide by the lore of Ultima as well as it's original creative direction.

    A true classic shard would be The Second Age as far as I'm concerned. It's the last edition of the game where all the original Ultima developers were working on it, including it's creator. but it will grow stale. The Stygian abyss would suit it fine but the other expansions would not. Lord Blackthorn's revenge is debatable since that game is essentially UO2 condensed into UO.

    The only way to solve this is a sequal. Ultima Online 2. And bring back Garriott todo it. I don't want anymore future WoW and Everquest developers stuffing up my 30 year legacy.
     
  18. Slymenstra

    Slymenstra Guest

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    UO, however, was better pre-AoS. Most people that pvped back then agree.
     
  19. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's extremely debatable. WoW is broken in two. PVP and PVE.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    bring back Garriott

    [/ QUOTE ]Oh yeah, sure - the 'king' who is more suprised than *I* am that UO is still around? UO was mostly an experiment meant to have a few thousand total users and last a year or so; expected to barely make a profit. Ask your precious British. He'll tell you so, unless he lies to you.

    No, let him stay gone; man made his millions and then bailed out at the peak - it was not all downhill because he left; he left because it was all downhill. He foresaw it. His peasants started getting annoying and his world started getting too big for him to handle, and off he went. The rest is history. But hey - if you love him so much, go play his latest cashcow, "World Of Starcraft"; oops, I mean "Blank Slate".

    ...General British... **Scoffs** I'm so sick of it. Every third thread becomes about "British This, Garriott That, Tabula Rasa Is The Bomb." This is UO. Well, this is what's LEFT of UO, anyways. Let's talk about UO, and not talk about World Of Starcraft. Richard "Lord British" Garriott is no longer part of UO. That's been years, now; so let's not talk about him. In fact, many years. A great very many many years. Get over it. The King Is Dead. Dead! Long long long dead. A great very many long long dead. Dead, and gone. And so is 'pre-AOS' and especially 'pre-Tram'. Let it rest. Enough is enough.

    And since the king is dust and Lady Dawn is lame - Sherry Mouse for Monarch!
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's extremely debatable. WoW is broken in two. PVP and PVE.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    And I ask you, what's wrong with that?
     
  22. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's extremely debatable. WoW is broken in two. PVP and PVE.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    And I ask you, what's wrong with that?

    [/ QUOTE ]


    What's wrong with it? A lack of direction? It's like making a real time strategy game and then throwing in a first person shooter element for those who prefer action over strategy...


    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    bring back Garriott

    [/ QUOTE ]Oh yeah, sure - the 'king' who is more suprised than *I* am that UO is still around? UO was mostly an experiment meant to have a few thousand total users and last a year or so; expected to barely make a profit. Ask your precious British. He'll tell you so, unless he lies to you.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    My previous British?... What? Seriously. Anyway here go: most games are an experiment, there are no guaruntees in the interactive entertainment industry. When you try something new, there is an extreme risk you'll fail, or you'll soar to success. UO and WoW are the best examples. One bought about a whole new concept for the online gaming scene, the other borrowed heavily on everything before it,but refined it. Both are extremely successful.

    UO was expected to not make a profit by it's PUBLISHER. The guys with the money. These are the ones who have to look at market trends and make a call. They can effectively stop or start any form of creative direction.

    Ultima Online was aimed at a niche, but it turned out to be a pretty popular concept to the mainstream market. So what's your point there? They introduced servers to cater for this. You can read it in the interview I posted.

    <blockquote><hr>


    No, let him stay gone; man made his millions and then bailed out at the peak - it was not all downhill because he left; he left because it was all downhill. He foresaw it. His peasants started getting annoying and his world started getting too big for him to handle, and off he went. The rest is history. But hey - if you love him so much, go play his latest cashcow, "World Of Starcraft"; oops, I mean "Blank Slate".

    [/ QUOTE ]

    ... are you serious? World of StarCraft? You obviously cannot distinguish between context let alone gameplay mechanics.

    Lord British left because EA's direction didn't agree with him. They cancelled some pretty big MMO projects including Wing Commander (Privateer) Online among others. The best solution was to take advantage of a new company and wait for the contract to expire. Smart move. Now he and his team can do what they want, which is the best way to let any artist work.

    He didn't leave at its peak, his role in its production ceased with Ultima Online: The Second Age because he was now salvaging Ultima 9. Ultima Online didn't reach its peak for a long time after he was gone.

    I think you'll also find that most of the original Ultima Online team left not long after release. Including Q/A testers who worked their way up to the design team.

    <blockquote><hr>


    ...General British... **Scoffs** I'm so sick of it. Every third thread becomes about "British This, Garriott That, Tabula Rasa Is The Bomb."

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Did I say any of that in my post? Garriott was quoted in a UO Radio interview from September as saying he'd welcome any correspondance by those incharge of Ultima but didn't hold hope for it due to "corporate" factors.

    <blockquote><hr>


    This is UO. Well, this is what's LEFT of UO, anyways. Let's talk about UO, and not talk about World Of Starcraft. Richard "Lord British" Garriott is no longer part of UO. That's been years, now; so let's not talk about him. In fact, many years. A great very many many years. Get over it. The King Is Dead. Dead! Long long long dead. A great very many long long dead. Dead, and gone. And so is 'pre-AOS' and especially 'pre-Tram'. Let it rest. Enough is enough.

    And since the king is dust and Lady Dawn is lame - Sherry Mouse for Monarch!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Read the topic you fool, it's a comparison between two major companies and how some can do things the other (of equal capability) cannot. So drop this stupid drama queen routine and try and post something that represents the ability of someone older than 3.
     
  23. Slymenstra

    Slymenstra Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's extremely debatable. WoW is broken in two. PVP and PVE.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Really? I play a PvP server....the Server is working fine!

    PvM/E is only meant to level up on, <u>WORLD PVP</u> is what Warcraft is all about!
     
  24. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What bothers me every time I see these kind of posts is the devs saying they would have to maintain two versions. I'm saying, put up a pre-AOS server and walk away. What is the problem with that? How would this require "additional" dev work? It's done, now just walk away.
     
  25. This entire topic is idiocy.

    -Galen's player
     
  26. Toguro

    Toguro Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    This entire topic is idiocy.

    -Galen's player

    [/ QUOTE ]

    than dont read it
     
  27. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Comparing World of Warcraft to Ultima Online is not a good analogy on this topic. World of Warcraft has had a steadily climbing number of subscriptions since it's inception, whereas Ultima Online peaked around 250k and is now about half that? In other words, a much larger percentage of people that have played UO are in the "former player" category than people who have played WoW.

    The main problem with this idea, as I see it, is it would require funding to set up (for all we know they don't have a handy copy of the server software back before AoS/Pub 16/UO:R/pick your revert of choice(which is another complication)), with no guarantee of growing the subscriber base. Hard sell to the business types, especially since they would need to either drastically slow current Development efforts or hire more Developers (even assuming this is a set it and forget it thing, with no maintenance once it's up and running). And since there are free alternatives, that doesn't help make the case for bringing in new paid subscriptions.

    I recall once at a community event, Nieves from UOPG tried to sell Sunsword on a proposal to create a toolkit to allow players to create and potentially host their own servers, officially sanctioned and all that jazz. Able to customize as much as they want, add in things, take out other things, etc. People without UO accounts would pay a nominal fee to play these player-run servers, or they'd get free access with a UO account. Anthony seemed fairly interested, and we were going to flesh out the idea and talk about it again. Nothing came out of it though. Too bad. Would have been a pretty low-maintenance way on their end to make some money and offer a sanctioned method to play with players' own rulesets.
     
  28. [​IMG]Simple answer ... there is no "crash proof" server/software configuration, currently.
    If there were ... they might try: It's done, now just walk away. ...[​IMG]

    lets try this ... they DID put the server up, an hour ago, the "First" logins were in/on and getting busy
    [​IMG] time to walk away ... yes? (done! walkaway!)
    50 minutes ago ... 1 player wanted "more somethings" ... tried an old shard crasher ... didn't quite work (no somethings)
    But
    the server crashed, with one bit/byte/word shifted in the code ...[​IMG]

    NOW you'll be wanting some attention, a simple power re-boot won't do ...
    IF you "get that" ... then, as inevitable as the next sun rise ...
    someone will want more attention too ... this bug, that bug, why can't we have ...[​IMG]

    Your:"put up a pre-AOS server and walk away" ... supposes that that "version" WAS bug-free ... no imbalances, no "gimps" ...
    perfect in every way ... AND that that version would not be set upon, by hacks and cracks and "cheaters" of every size and form.

    hmmmmm

    can you see a flaw in that reasoning ?
     
  29. "WORLD PVP is what Warcraft is all about! "

    World PvP is nothing but Horde ganking Alliance.

    Yeah, LOTS of fun there. /drips sarcasm
     
  30. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    "WORLD PVP is what Warcraft is all about! "

    World PvP is nothing but Horde ganking Alliance.

    Yeah, LOTS of fun there. /drips sarcasm

    [/ QUOTE ]I don't find it fun myself, but there are several million people who do. PVP is a very important part of MMORPG's.
     
  31. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    "WORLD PVP is what Warcraft is all about! "

    World PvP is nothing but Horde ganking Alliance.

    Yeah, LOTS of fun there. /drips sarcasm

    [/ QUOTE ]I don't find it fun myself, but there are several million people who do. PVP is a very important part of MMORPG's.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That's true, however it's the PvE servers that are the most populated, where the PvP is ONLY in the battlegrounds.

    I actually enjoyed the BG PvP myself and spent quite a bit of time in them. There's a huge difference in a Horde gank fest and equal numbers PvP. Funny thing is, Horde usually lost in the BG's. Go figure. [​IMG]
     
  32. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I actually enjoyed the BG PvP myself and spent quite a bit of time in them. There's a huge difference in a Horde gank fest and equal numbers PvP. Funny thing is, Horde usually lost in the BG's. Go figure.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Funny, I've played on several servers, and it was always Alliance ganking Horde, wiping out all NPCs in Kalimdor leveling areas, etc. And the only BG we'd lose regularly is WSG, because the vast majority of the time Allies would premade and Horde would pug.

    I suppose mileage varies, especially on different servers and battlegroups. Perhaps it's just a matter of perception and perspective.
     
  33. Slymenstra

    Slymenstra Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    "WORLD PVP is what Warcraft is all about! "

    World PvP is nothing but Horde ganking Alliance.

    Yeah, LOTS of fun there. /drips sarcasm

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I am not surprised to see Connor Graham tramming it up in WoW as well....alliance pfft!

    Check out the wow website...where they show the numbers of Alliance and Horde lvl 70s......over 73% are Alliance. Yeah, total gank fest dude!!! /horrible emote with bowing and posturing gestures.

    Btw, the problem with Bgs right now, in particular AV, is that Alliance are not queuing up because they lose over 90% of them. /QQ
     
  34. "Funny, I've played on several servers, and it was always Alliance ganking Horde, wiping out all NPCs in Kalimdor leveling areas, etc."

    It was exactly the opposite on my server. Invariably if you did kill a single Horde player 1vs1, 5 more would show up. Then there were the groups of 10 or more level 70's that would hit up the newbie areas at least once a day, usually more.
     
  35. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    This entire topic is idiocy.

    -Galen's player



    than dont read it

    [/ QUOTE ]
    How do you know he did read it? He stated that the TOPIC was idiocy. And I tend to agree.

    The only ones still hoping for a classic shard are in denial and besides ... isnt it against the rules to discuss classic shards on UHall?
     
  36. Slymenstra

    Slymenstra Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    "Funny, I've played on several servers, and it was always Alliance ganking Horde, wiping out all NPCs in Kalimdor leveling areas, etc."

    It was exactly the opposite on my server. Invariably if you did kill a single Horde player 1vs1, 5 more would show up. Then there were the groups of 10 or more level 70's that would hit up the newbie areas at least once a day, usually more.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How were lvl 70's killing people in newb areas? On a PvE server? Even with pvp toggled on, aren't the newb areas Alliance territory anyway (consensual pvp only)? Don't you have a pvp switch on those carebear shards?

    I lol. I lol.
     
  37. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    "Funny, I've played on several servers, and it was always Alliance ganking Horde, wiping out all NPCs in Kalimdor leveling areas, etc."

    It was exactly the opposite on my server. Invariably if you did kill a single Horde player 1vs1, 5 more would show up. Then there were the groups of 10 or more level 70's that would hit up the newbie areas at least once a day, usually more.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    How were lvl 70's killing people in newb areas? On a PvE server? Even with pvp toggled on, aren't the newb areas Alliance territory anyway (consensual pvp only)? Don't you have a pvp switch on those carebear shards?

    I lol. I lol.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I was on a PvP server obviously. We WERE discussing world PvP, which only takes place on PvP servers. The areas I was referring to are the ones that are one step up from the Alliance territories, and are open to PvP. Still, a level 16-18 or so doesn't stand much of a chance against a level 70. All the higher level player has to do is breath in that general direction and the lower level player is dead.
     
  38. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    Nothing is broken in the current WoW. It's great.


    [/ QUOTE ]


    That's extremely debatable. WoW is broken in two. PVP and PVE.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Really? I play a PvP server....the Server is working fine!

    PvM/E is only meant to level up on, <u>WORLD PVP</u> is what Warcraft is all about!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Someone is guilty of thread necromancy!
     
  39. eolsunder1

    eolsunder1 Guest

    One basic fact you have to consider. When playing freeshards, the most popular shards are those that are styled after old school UO rules. Before alot of the current pixel crack.

    The 2nd most popular are unique shards where the owners/GM.s have did alot of revamping with items, graphics, etc. Remember, many things in UO started out in free shards with great people thinking of cool things. Colored wood, Taxidermy kits, and many many other things were the creation of smart inventive people on freeshards, usually years before UO actually put them into regular shards.

    There are still tons of inventive ideas on free shards that need to be put into the game, that are EXTREMELY fun. PVP arenas, pvp gladiatorial games and matches, boat construction kits, open sea pirates, unique crafting, and dozens of other things.