SunSword's Edge

This quote from Ubiq jumped out at me:
"You played it because anything could happen, and you didn’t want to miss it."

That rings very true. For a good year or so after launch, people really believed that they could figure out how to talk to wisps, learn necromancy from liches, hunt down Relvinian, bump into Lord Blackthorn on a random streetcorner, etc. In some cases such faith was justified given the rather undisciplined approach to patches and in-game events back then. You really did never know what secrets there might be. Nowadays, people don't have any illusions of finding features that weren't bullet points on the back of the box. I'm not trying to blame anyone, but the industry has gotten TOO good at managing player expectations.

As for UO's death, it's been predicted over and over before, but this is the first time subscriptions have trended down for two years. I attribute this to the increasing predictability, safety, and sterility of the game environment. It's a paradox of being too disciplined.

It could probably never happen, but I'd like to see the Origin shard get biweekly "thought of an idea this morning over breakfast" patches as was par for the course for UO in 1997. What turns out to be good gets polished for all the shards. A crucible for risky, innovative ideas is just the kind of thing UO could use. Like I said, I don't expect it to happen.

Welcome to the growing community of Terra Nova bashers ;p

Actually this time it was even too easy.

I agree with what you wrote, even if the last P.S. didn't convince me so much but just because I'd like to see an evolution of the current "closed-shard" model that I consider obsolete.

What I wonder is if it is possible to go on with the development on all the fronts. That's how an online world is supposed to be, without the need to be segmented into sequels or upgrades. You could still use them, but just as a "presentation" of a work that follows its own flow.

In general the expansions are always "more of the same". There's mudflation but not a growth. It's horizontal, not vertical.

What I'd like to see is a mmorpg where all the parts are kept "under work" in a cohesive way. Everything. Instead of just working on superficial layers (like DAoC or EQ graphical updates). Something going deeper and that continues to change there, and not just on the surface, pretending to be new when it still feels old and obsolete.

The current graphic updates are *liftings*. They do not represent an ongoing development.

Abalieno, I think the answer to your question is "yes." Actually, I think you made the point better than my original post :).

MMO sequels should be continuations of the original game, hence players should retain their investment.

If it's a "sequel" it's because the new offering marks significant updates to the game that reach beyond either "more of the same" or "shiny new graphics."

In regards to your thought about "closed shard architecture," I know what you're driving at, but that comment was directed at the kinds of sequels that have or could have been made to date.

While what you say is true, I am not sure that EA fully understands how close they actually were to losing a major portion of the playerbase. I was prepared to move on fully expecting another poorly designed, bug-ridden expansion. For the first time ever though you guys managed to put out a good release. Now, if we could just bring back functionality of crafters and minimalize the effects of items then we should get this game back in order.

I agree with your points about AC2 and EQ2 - though AC2 could have been more from the poor gameplay.

I'm not sure I agree with you about fully transferring characters and such over to a new game. Players don't like to enter new games at a disadvantage, and having 7 year veterans of your old game start out maxxed out will discourage them. I'm just imagining trying to get a friend to play, say, DAOC2 with me - "I'm already maxed out, but you could start a new character and grind my yourself!"

That's not to say I don't think there should be ANY transfer. In my armchair designer opinion, characters of the old game should start out just above complete newbie status. For example, UO players would start out UO Two with a small house, preplaced, and their 7x GM characters - but in UO Two, the skillcap would be 200 instead of 100.

Of course, that all changes based on some core designs enacted into the game. What if UO Two has skillboxes instead of UO's skill system? What if items are handled differently?

Then there's the graphics update option, which is great for existing and former subscribers, but maybe not so great for new subscribers.

Kid: "Ooo, cool Asheron's Call: New Engine is coming out soon!"
Friend: "Dude, that game is 6 years old, they're just giving it a facelift."

Final thought:
As a former longtime UO subscriber with a firm dislike for UO's present-day gameplay, it's been hard not to stay on the hate train. Really, what I'm most concerned with for UO is the possibility that it's US subscriber base is under 100,000.

I think you have it right on Schimmy. I made a Bowyer with the belief that Bowyers would have the ability that smiths have to enhance items. An ability that was promised in the promotional info. Guess what? It hasn't happened yet. I want to be able to play my crafter as much as my others. There are characters that spend all their time afk training with a Golem and come back to a GM char. I think that is WRONG. Something is wrong with a system when it is easier to CHEAT than follow the gameplay.

Donelin said:
"here are characters that spend all their time afk training with a Golem and come back to a GM char. I think that is WRONG. Something is wrong with a system when it is easier to CHEAT than follow the gameplay."

Hello to every MMORPG evar. In some, it's powerleveling. In others, it's macroing. And in a few, it's both. You cannot code out people getting around your advancement scheme. Does that mean you can't code out obvious exploits, like this golem thing may be? Of course not. Just be prepared for another skill-gain method or afk powerlevel spot to show up.

Ray: "What if UO Two has skillboxes instead of UO's skill system? What if items are handled differently?"

This brings back memories of the Ultimas and Bard's Tales sharing characters. It would change your Ultima 3 Barbarian into a Bard's Tale Warrior, and so on. I think this is actually closer to what could be done with this whole thing. Make up conversion rates between the two games so that your 7x GM character from UO has maybe 14 out of 100 skill boxes to spend throughout the skill trees. Maybe every skill at 50% gives one skill box, while a skill at 100% gives two. It reduces the relative level of achievement, giving you a bit of an advantage, but so much that you're pwnzoring everybody right out of the box.

It's actually fairly easy, as such things go, to deliver a new client engine for an existing MMO. Here's an example from a certain other game. After all, the server is pretty agnostic about who's talking to it.

Ah, Terra Nova. Frankly, I suspect they are convinced Project Entropia is healthier than UO. Once you understand the VERY narrow bands for their personal discussions (think early-90's cyberpunk: information wants to be free! we own our characters, not the steeknin companies! Cyberia or bust! The grid/matrix/cyberspace is coming!) it becomes a lot easier to digest.

The article in question, though, was a reader's submission, and I thought it was more a little out of place. Maybe I'm REALLY out of touch with UO (which, grant you, is very possible) but it read to me like someone who was disgruntled with the game and chose to build a pseudo-respectable rant around that thesis.

But hey, no one's EVER done that before about UO! (runs away, cackling madly)

> It's actually fairly easy, as such things go, to deliver a new client engine for an existing MMO. Here's an example from a certain other game. After all, the server is pretty agnostic about who's talking to it.

Wrong. If you bring DAoC has an example it exactly falls into the "lifting" procedure.

There was a thread on Corpnews where I tried to underline my reasons:
http://www.corpnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1613&start=20

> The graphic is an important part of the game but often it is trivialized as something superficial and irrelevant when, instead, it has a strong role even in the gameplay, including level design, animations, customizations, interactivity and a lot more.

online casinos

free online casinos

internet casinos

top online casinos

online gambling

casinos

casinos online

best online casinos

online casino

casino online

casino

casino bonus

play casinos

casinos

casino gambling

casinos online

top online casino

new online casinos

online casinos

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)