by Azaroth | October 19th, 2009
Once and for all, these two mighty titans clash.
Nostalgia – He may be old, but he’s a wily veteran. He knows just what buttons to push. His only weakness? Endurance.
Evolution – The Unknown Challenger! The Six Million Dollar Man! Robocop! Designed better, stronger, faster – but can you ever substitute for experience and that incredible “think of your grandma’s lemonade” and poke-you-in-the-eye trick? … Did we use steel or aluminum? I forget, kinda….
My argument is that while oldschool UO is great – it’s not 1999 anymore. In fact, I’d say had UO not evolved it wouldn’t be alive today. Not because one ruleset is better or worse necessarily, but because change and evolution is absolutely necessary in order for an online game to survive. When you’re talking about one with no PvE, no endgame, and none of the modern trappings of newer games, evolution becomes even more important.
UO is an incredible base. As a foundation, you can’t beat it. But it has its problems, and nobody can deny that. While the low to midlevel of the game is stacked with sandboxy goodness, there’s nearly nothing for the PvE player. How does a new player even get started? That’s another question left unanswered. When you’re talking about scoffing at new blood and PvE-minded players, you’re talking about a fairly short period of life for a game.
Yet, some people don’t want any change.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. It’s the reason IPY existed in the first place. That, and UO was a damn good game the way it was. People are afraid that mucking with a good thing will leave them with something less desirable.
I agree, it’s a serious concern. I’ve never pretended to have all the answers or be the smartest man alive. My solutions may be poorly designed. Or poorly coded (<— Unlikely, as my guys are terrific, of course). They may, however well intentioned or thought through, simply fail when introduced to the wild. There are a lot of variables to deal with. Or they may just lack fun.
Who knows, but success is anything but a guarantee. In fact, it’s probably more unlikely than it is likely, all things considered. Then, there’s the fact that no matter what you do, some people will never be happy with change.
The Old is comfortable. I know how to play already, I know I like it, and I know I want to play me some right now. Putthatdamnserverup.
But what about later? What about in six months? In a year? Do you want to play then?
Some of you might. Maybe it’s still on IPY, maybe it’s on a new server with the exact same ruleset (that is somehow better because it’s new, leading us back to the fact that while the game is fun there’s no endgame, nothing to do after a point, and nothing to do but start over. Starting over isn’t ever truly fun unless everyone else is starting over too, because being at a disadvantage sucks. So on and so forth.) – but most of you probably won’t. We’ve been through this before.
You hit a wall when you play UO. Once you’ve completed your macros, farmed your gold, and placed your tower… things can get repetitive.
Evolution is an attempt to step in and not just bandaid that problem, but holistically deal with it to find a true solution. Whether I can accomplish that is yet to be seen. No matter what, some people will dislike everything I do. It’ll be up to you to decide whether you approve or not when the time comes.
Loading ...
Comment test on the new theme.
I believe carrying the standard ruleset while preparing for an expansion would be in your best interest, and let me explain why.
Sure, everyone will be excited about your server just re-opening with the ‘bare minimum’ as far as features are concerned. There will be some people who are pleased with just the old IPY settings, and there will probably even more who want additional functionality. What will be your toughest problem is deciding who to please, you know as well as I do that whoever isn’t on the right end of the spoon is going to feel alienated (and this usually means half of the playerbase).
Sadly there’s no way around this, but I would just take some time and listen to your player’s concerns and think of ways to implement them to make everyone happy to some extent. I think you’ll find that the die-hard conservatives are going to be some of the first to get bored, but they won’t voice any concerns because they don’t realize they’re bored.
What I’d recommend doing is starting out with your bare-bones IPY and immediately start working on an expansion. First design and structure things that aren’t game-changing — probably focusing primarily on the PvM department, because they will be the ones most open to change. Adding new PvP systems probably won’t hurt after the server gets to this point in it’s lifeline, but I wouldn’t make any changes to the fundamental mechanics so you don’t alienate any of your core PvP fans.
Actually, I agree. Especially about the fact that most people don’t really know when they’re bored – it’s just UO. They’re not bored with the server or what it’s doing in particular, they’re bored with UO again for a while. That UO doesn’t necessarily HAVE to bore them in that way isn’t really involved in the thought process, I think.
Going with one shard and expansions (really, what you said would actually work out – there’s pretty much two separate expansions worth of content) would have been my initial instinct. Since I’m pretty sure the amount of heat I’d catch over drastically changing IPY up would be legendary, I started with the idea of two shards.
This poll will help me make my mind up once and for all, I think.
“Adding new PvP systems probably won’t hurt after the server gets to this point in it’s lifeline, but I wouldn’t make any changes to the fundamental mechanics so you don’t alienate any of your core PvP fans.”
I agree. Preserving the mechanics will be the most important component to pleasing the nostalgic player base. As long as you’re careful not to introduce too much “candy” into the environment, you’ll have a very happy community.
Difficult poll to answer, tbh. I pulled the trigger on “go as planned”
There is now an edit feature in the comments, since so many people were complaining about that. Enjoy, sirs.
Good poll, I went with: Both. Two servers, like planned. Splitting the community be damned, it will sort itself out and perhaps end up with more players overall.
Ive stood behind this idea from the start and still think its the best. Let people enjoy the nostalgia they had on IPY and in the meanwhile work on IPY 3. Whenever you finish IPY 3, you can choose to bring IPY 2 down, because by that time the pleasure of nostalgia has probably ran out.
Lefty
I agree stick to Both Two Servers, like planned….
I hope this server bring a lot of old faces around and a lot of new ones. I like the old school server back but also would enjoy an update version. I think people will play both equally… They’ll start off old school get set up for the PvP, and go to the new to see the expansions of what you’ve created.
I never played IPY, however I am still very excited based on what I have heard about it in the past. I started Ultima Online on Metropolis, and over the years even ran a few emulated servers once Metropolis had faded. From what I hear, IPY did it right.
Very interested in seeing not just what was exactly right about it, but what was right about its creators.
Both. Nostalgia until it begins to fade, then Evolution as an expansion pack. One server.
<– Lets see what made it great, and how the creators can expand on it to make it better…
I dont know how much longer this talk is going to go around in circles for 2.0. Fact of the matter is, what you had up years before was what was working.
Simple. effective, and easy.
Now lets do this.
Also, i’m more worried about how long the server can stay up. Can you handle the hundreds it might cost monthly to host a server like this without non stop donations? (If it hits the client base it did before).
http://www.wtfman.com/flash/commovie.htm
Keep it fuckin’ groovy Az. :P
I voted for one server with the expansion later, but I suppose it would have to depend on what the expansion entailed.
On to the off-topic side. I was having a group conversation in my local IRC channel about UO and this server potentially opening and we ended up on the discussion of scripting etc… I recall one time you (azaroth) saying that you weren’t interested in requiring players to use punkbuster. I don’t know much about punkbuster and I certainly don’t know how difficult or easy it would be to apply it to UO, could you shed some light on the yays and nays of the idea?
Hey, I’m kinda getting excited is Grey still around.?… I had his townie running completely redlined while Ara was nuking me:P I wan’t a re-match.
Uo:R though I went nox mage; and i played it creatively. couldn’t be interrupted. lol
as always…. drunk :) excuse me
I voted Evolution all the way.
Ever since the thread where you showed signs of considering curbing Synch Dump Pvp, I been all about it.
If I could have my one and only awesome thing for the new IPY, it would definently be something that put an end to Synch Dump Only group pvp.
I would love to see a system that made a group of All Mages actually becomes equal to or even Less Than a group of mixed warriors and mages.
We’ve beaten the hell out of this horse, but I am all for any tweaks you would make to allow for more diversity, less synchronization, and more free-form fun in every aspect of the gameplay.
I also prefer that you keep MOST of the combat code outside of said changes at about the same way they were on IPY 1.
One Server. Make it The Big One. The Great One. The Only One to play with the cool new features of balance that will undoubtedly draw more players.
But please keep the combat mechanics in the timeframe of T2A…no special hits or anything like that. That’ll kill it.
Making new housing add ons, cosmetic stuff, rare decorative/valuable stuff that people can farm and have a sense of danger at the same time as farming it, that’s the kind incentives that work for the Less PvP oriented players. And they are unlimited, you can come up with more and more monsters, housing add ons/rares, treasures, dungeons etc.etc. and it never has to even interfere with the IPY Pre UOR style gameplay that the veterans know and love.
Hey! Who voted Azaroth Sucks!?
I much prefer one server with additions that you feel would enhance the game. Either in expansion or from the start – probably expansion would be best.
So long as PvP stays intact. I don’t know why people have a problem with sync dumping – as long as it isn’t automated. And dexxers were completely viable – anyone remember MethodManX? Dude was a beast and could completely change the course of a fight.
Have you come up with a way to address automating mana dumps?
I suppose the variable casting time or a variable damage delay on spells(maybe relative to your distance from the target) is a decent enough solution.
One server is a great idea. My worry with one server is the heat I’ll catch for “Ruining IPY” or “Ruining Pre-UO:R”, etc.
No matter how good or bad the new ruleset is, you know the boards will be flooded with that type of stuff.
Longevity wins.
I voted for one server – IPY 3.0
My thoughts-
IPY 3 is by far the best hope for producing a shard that has sustainable gameplay. It’s also true that you have limited resources, and launching/managing two separate communities will not be a trivial undertaking. That being said, I think there are a lot of people that would prefer that you launch IPY 2 first, but many of them will soon grow bored with a game that doesn’t really offer an end-game.
I’d really enjoy having the opportunity to play both servers, but at the end of the day I’ve only got time to play one server. For my own selfish reasons, I’d prefer that server to be IPY 3.
Although the expansion idea is probably a good compromise, it significantly limits the effectiveness of IPY 3 changes if you don’t completely wipe the server. Most everyone will have already reached 7x with gold and housing before an xpac is released, which would really diminish the value of making skill gain, PvE, and crafting more interesting.
I think you’re probably right, but I also think I’d really disappoint some people if I didn’t put up an IPY clone and went straight to a custom ruleset.
In fact, I think most of the people here on this blog are here looking for the original ruleset.
I voted for 1 server with both.
Why not have the good old IPY with enhanced features such as the scrolls for skill gain, no house macroing, better skill gain in dungeons etc. get house add-ons, more colors etc for the majority of people(because we pvpers are the minority, not the opposite).
just dont touch the game mechanics, so pvpers will be happy. The only one that will complain are those who wants to spend 2-3 weeks in their house macroing then log in 10-20 mins a day for the next 2 months and then quit.
I voted for “Evolution. One server. Nostalgia will fade, concentrate on the solution. Go nuts. ” because I was baked and there is too many options that required thinking.
But honestly, two servers is not a bad idea once we figure out how many people are going to play here longer than three months. I’m not really sure if two servers is a good idea if the playerbase is under 600 ip’s.
But this is your server Az, it always comes down to what you think is best.
Also the more I think about Avernus’s post the more I think he is right, I’m just not sure how the population will see it seeing as they probably want something familiar and the idea of the old ipy – exactly how it was – sounds a lot better than taking a risk.
I voted for two servers, but I’d like to see IPY 2.0 (cloneish server) up for a year or two, then taken down with IPY 3.0 coming up to replace it. A year or two really is the “fun shelf life” of a freeshard server. Let everyone build their empires, characters, legions, and leave it up long enough to let everyone have their wars and funs, all the while working on your 3.0 project.
Take a poll when 3.0 is ready, let everyone in on the WHOLE CONCEPT, and then make the decision on whether or not you can (financially and logistically) support two servers. If not, go with your gut. People will come. You, me, and everyone else here reading this blog, knows that the players will come, and honestly that’s the biggest hurdle facing anyone starting up a new server. All the rest is a drop in the bucket comparatively speaking.
It’ll be fun, and thanks again for all the hard work and money above all else, you’re sinking in this project. I’m looking forward to it very much, and have been letting everyone know it’ll be up sometime in 2010, and to start reading your blog for updates and vote on the polls.
Put up a test center az, set skills and free equip in a tournament arena. Open it once a month until IPY 2.0 opens, with a fresh wipe each tournament. This will be insanely good for building up your playerbase for launch day, and appeasing your crowd.
Im pretty confused with all the questions and “testing” ideas. What he had worked, everyone seemed to love it, and people want back what they remembered. Tehres nothing to change, and nothing to test. It worked.
I think this is a conversation that should be discussed when the time comes.
Here’s what I would like to see:
Launch of 2.0 with mainly classic mechanics in place (mostly related to PvP I suppose) and some of the new ideas implemented (like the skill gain system we talked about; anything that should be in place and finetuned from the get go). Over time, new things can be added whether it be a new region like a dungeon or landmass, factions, some type of PvM “champ” spawn, custom BOD/plant system (why not), whatever. You could have a big set of changes in the form of an “expansion” but I think smaller more frequent changes would be the better route (evolution). Obviously that means I’d prefer to keep it all on one server.
By testcenter I simply meant a server we all could log on to duel in a tournament or something similar that used test center ruleset. Not for any actual changing of mechanics. I just suggested it because it would be REALLY easy to do, and I’d really enjoy playing it so I figured there’s a bunch of others who’d enjoy the notion as well.
I think that’ll be called the PvP Alpha, which is happening as soon as I can find HMU. There’s also a few more things that need to get done as well.
As far as a public skillgate/dueling/everythingazarothhatesinaserver- server?
Unlikely, yo!
But there’ll be a beta test at some point relatively soon, so don’t worry too much.
Beta, while not an instant-pvp-pewpew experience, will be worthwhile to contribute to. I intend to present bug reporters with a ladder of rewards that last into final release. Hopefully unique enough that it’ll seem worth handing over that house loot you found instead of saving it, hoping nobody else notices it, and cleaning out your neighbours as soon as they get their first vanq.
HMU is my hero
by “relatively soon” you mean within the next month or two?
It’s hard to answer questions like that right now. I don’t want to get people hyped up or disappointed, especially when they’ll take it as something that’s set in stone — and it wouldn’t be.
When I have something that is, I’ll let you all know.
I understand the tendency for people to want to just have you recreate IPY as it was before. It’s a tempting thing to do — It’s certainly the easiest, and it will almost certainly provide a few months of extremely solid entertainment. Hell, it might be almost as good as the first IPY incarnation.
But from my perspective, that’s the ceiling, and that’s the primary source of my hesitation. Don’t get me wrong: I think anything that’s going to come out of this is going to be damn successful and enjoyable in it’s own right, but I also feel that most everyone here can see, clearly, the problems that are going to eventually consume the experience. It seems a shame to put something out there that has such a rapidly approaching expiration date before it’s even started.
This kind of thing happens in day-to-day life all of the time. Essentially, every experience exists in-and-of itself at the given point in time that it happened. IPY was fucking legendary. It was a damn good cup of milk. For some of us, it rivaled the original UO experience, and that is a feat that actually boggles my mind. I feel lucky for having had that experience. But this damn good cup of milk had an expiration date. And we can put it in the microwave, cross our fingers and, for some of us, the nostalgia will be so powerful that we won’t even care that it’s at least a little bit curdled. The same thing happens with ex girlfriends and old friendships. And those, too, can work for a time. But the only way to to make it work on a longer timeframe is to make adaptations.
The nostalgia is an incredibly important part of this whole equation, don’t get me wrong: It’s what reminds us that this whole thing is worth making happen. But to recreate something just for the sake of nostalgia seems to put a limit on the experience. I’d go so far as to say that it might even be an insult to those earlier times. Have we learned nothing from IPY? Have we learned nothing in the last half decade?
If we aren’t striving to make it better, then what is the goal here?
It’s tough that many people are begging to have a IPY 1.0 clone as soon as possible. But if there’s anything I can say with certainty, it’s that most people are essentially just walking pleasure centers, and they will consume everything to that end with a ruthless efficiency before drifting on to the next thing, which might just be a kit kat bar, it really doesn’t matter. IPY didn’t achieve the success it did by tailoring to those tastes, and it seems like it would be a tremendous leap backwards to start doing that now.
I think this could be something great, not just a good time that lasts a few months and then begins a slow and prolonged death that takes a serious toll on everyone involved. Granted, maybe that’s going to happen either way, but, fuck, why not fight it every step of the way and go out like a warrior if that’s going to be the case? WWLBD?
As I see it, the intricate knowledge of UO that everyone possesses can be used as an asset or it can be used to deliver the deathblow to this whole thing. These talks seem to steer it toward the former, but it’s going to take time to distill everything into a concise and focused vision. In my opinion, that will be worthwhile, to say the least. It’s something I would be proud to be a part of.
In the end, I don’t think that UO needs a radical overhaul to be something that people can enjoy on a more sustainable level. 85% of UO is brilliant like almost no other game. Sweeping changes aren’t necessary here. But it’s got some gigantic loopholes that need to be closed, if only to restore it to where it was at, to say nothing of improving upon it. So at the very least, I think that some changes should be made in that department.
But mostly, I encourage us to go for the gold here. If we don’t, then I think we are letting a rare opportunity pass us by. It might come around in another five years, sure, but who can say what the landscape will be then. I say let’s just go for it now.
Strong post, as always. Right on the mark about quite a few things.
I agree with einsacks, although without knowing exactly what kind of “changes” you (azaroth) are talking about for ipy 3.0, it’s impossible to speculate what would happen. I think most people would welcome many changes, so long as they aren’t too radical. For instance if you were to put UOR pvp on IPY (not to say that you ever intended on doing so), that would be something that I’d say most people would want on IPY 3.0 and not IPY 2.0 (if anywhere). However if you wanted to put in something like the skill scrolls that you guys talked about I think that could be implemented smoothly (player opinion wise) and probably would get a phat thumbs up by most people.
There are many things that you could add to IPY 2.0 that would not change the basic game mechanics and ruleset, and if you want statloss in you’d better put it in at the start or else people will flip out.
On that note I’ll mention that I’ve always thought factions on a preuor server would be interesting, perhaps a bit too radical for some but factions were cool and they successfully got solo players and non-elites in the mix for the long term.
Anyway before I start adding more opinions.
The evolution of the shard is alright for small pieces here and there i totally support that idea. Changing the game altogether tough may be a bad idea. I mean look what happen to osi with all there changes. But the small changes never made anyone quit it just brought more attention to the small changes bringing a little bit more fun. Another huge factor you should focus on is pvp i mean look at UOSA has the most god awful pvp Ive seen to date and thus 80 percent of its population is pvmers, Alot of players refuse to play there because of its pvp. That would unbalance the PVM/Pvpers ultimately slimming down the pvp population slowly due to players having nothing to do. Without the pvpers the crafters may suffer as well, And lets be honest the occasional red isnt so bad to see while hunting makes things a bit less repetitive. I cannot help but post some biased opinions but the game is fun in the players eyes everyone’s style very best to find the middleman.
Evolution.
Your only going to have one chance to have the hype for it to work, and that is right now. Run 2.0 for a year and everyone is already going to be burnt out and the other half will complain forever that you shut it down or split its population in half, and neither shard will succed. Dont be afraid of the people who want nostaliga, they will play 3.0 when it comes out and stay if its actually better. Keep pvp basically the same, I even like the idea of using some new wepons, and graphics as long as they are balanced. Dont change the fundamentals of pvp though, and it would be great adding and changing monster spawn to improve PvM. New monster graphics, new phat lewt, shit like this is not what ruined UO, if it was 1999 and playing UO I would be excited as hell if I heard of expansions like this. Ban MACROING, who cares if your going to have a few whiners, Its going to be healthy for the shard overall. It just makes sense.
This shard has to be about the future, if it wants to thrive.
Fresh not stale, go for it!
Hm. See, these are the types of posts that make it worthwhile having these blog discussions. That’s an interesting perspective.
Banning macroing does not ever work, becomes a huge hassle for those who must police it and alienates the more casual players who still want to compete.
The inefficiency of the “NO MACROING” rule has been proven time and time again.
Make it worthwhile to NOT macro and you have the same effect without ever making your life more difficult.
ie triple skill gain against mobs.
When will people give up on this pathetic anti macroing crusade that has been waged since like 1997.
Rewards are certainly better motivators than penalties. I’m all for making skill gain more interesting and limiting the options for macroing, but lets make sure that anti-macro efforts actually improve the situation rather than widening the gap. For example, the 8×8 method didn’t stop people from macroing, it simply created a larger divide between those who knew how to get around it and those who didn’t. It’s also important to remember that a large percentage, if not the majority, of this playerbase consists of casual gamers. There’s a reason why we aren’t all playing WoW right now, so let’s keep the game moving at an appropriate pace :)
Id like to quote Oxandrolone:
“Make it worthwhile to NOT macro and you have the same effect without ever making your life more difficult.”
It should be about promoting “playing the game”, not banning macroing.
Lefty
yup for example make it so that macroing fencing on a GM fencer take six times as long to gm as battling mobs in a dungeon
I’m not going to be dogmatic here. I’m all for the idea of faster skill gain if fighting monsters and slower skill gain if fighting another character. Of course, people could just lure monsters into their house and have a healer if it was that simple. A solution would be only letting monsters in dungons give you faster skill gain, and having a few special locations outside dungens where the monsters give you better drop. (to give incentive to hunt outside dungeons sometimes). I still really dont think its going to be any better if you can macro a 7x char in a week, and get a 7x in 3-4 days if your hunting monsters. It should take atleast a month to get a 7x if your macroing everyday and if you play everday you might get one in 2 weeks. Even that seems a little fast though.
People have this fundamental idea that they have to be maxed out 7x to enjoy the game, and its just flawed. If everyone was on an even playing field and it took a few months to 7x your char, you could still pvp with a 5x and do alright if you where skilled.
Azaroth, why listen to people who are so burnt out on UO that they dont even want to enjoy building their character? They are going to play for a few months and quit anyways after they get their fill of PVP. These are not the people that are going to make your server healthy. I think you know that from experience. Everyone always say’s “Dont alienate the casual gamer” and I think thats true, but definatly dont alinate the dedicated gamer… they are the one’s that keep the community/server spinning. By having a server that you can max out your char in a week and switch into quake mode, its doomed. Everyone is going to get bored.
Another interesting option is doing something like this :
I would like to suggest something like 0-50 fast and easy skill gain that would allow new chars a easy start > 50-60 still easy but a tad slower timer on gains > 60-70 Skills gains start to get a tad harder but no decrease to timer > 70-80 Both gains and timer get a bit harder and slower > 80-90 no change maybe even a bit easier > 90-98 put some sort of random timer in where gains could be unpredictable such as slow to no for hours or days to suddenly hitting a jack pot and filling the left side of your screen with blue lettering announcing ridiculus skill gain in a short amount of time( or not just thought something like that might juce it up a bit) > 98-GM simply put this should be a bitch and the affective difference of any given skill between 98 and GM should reflect a worthwile difference to make the effort worth the extra trouble . I think if getting GM was a pain those that went for it would/should reap any possable benifit for thier efforts.
Combined with the fast skill gain in dungeons, even put some forges in there for adventurous miners. Ive also always liked the idea of special ore (just colors) only being able to be mined in dungeons. Gives a little bit of thrill for the crafters, and incentive because the colored armor would be worth more. Its just so much more dynamic and it does not interfer in PVP in any bad way, it actually adds to the pvp/pk scene.
I feel that the more time and effort one puts into thier char , the more likly they will stay active and keep playing instead of getting bored and moving on. If you just wanted to macro up to 98 in every skill that would not take super long, but to get the rest you would actually have to play. Maybe only make it possible to get to 100 while fighting in dungeons. That way the casual gamer could get to his almost 7x char and jump on the field real quick and have a small disadvantage, and the dedicated player could eventually have a little bit of advantage because of the time he has put into his char.
And bored pk’s/pvpers that cant find any action, could cruse dungeons and at least get some skill gain in between fights.
Allow me an off-topic observation: a number of contributers in this topic recommend “heavily” accelerated skill gains in dungeons. I don’t. If you’re going to implement accelerated skill gain, it’s extremely important to integrate it into the entire environment, not a centralized location. Here’s why:
1) The remaining world becomes obsolete. By using accelerated gains in a certain location, you’re removing the incentive for players to explore and experiment with the rest of the game world. It’s difficult to appreciate a different section of the world, when there isn’t a reason for being there.
2) By heavily incentivizing a dungeon, you’re going to convert a location of opportunity into a breeding-ground for criminals and murderers. No reasonable PVP player is going to scout a graveyard, a jungle, a forest, a camp, or a town when they know you’re in a dungeon. Likewise, no reasonable PVE player will endanger themselves by entering a location in which their fate is certain. PVE players won’t appreciate being offered a reward that they can’t acquire. The element of danger is important, but when you’re turning risk from reasonable to absolute, the incentive becomes irrelevant. You can’t gain when you’re dead, or obtain items when your bag has been looted empty. In that respect, incentivizing dungeons fails.
In my opinion, in respect to “gains” only, the incentive of a dungeon should be the concentration of monsters available to the player, for convienence. While I haven’t considered an an effective deterrent to anti-macro, I don’t believe implementing gains exclusive to one type of location is the answer.
Would you rather people be hanging out in their houses safely macroing away until 7x?
Gains inside a dungeon are good to interaction along with stat loss for reds and no recall inside dungeons…
Think about the situation. If your red and in stat you go to pk a bunch of noobs in a dungeon and you successfully do so. Now you have to run out of said dungeon, while these noobs go into IRC and spam the channel with “REDS PK’D ME INSIDE DESPISE!!!!”
Guess who is know waiting outside the dungeon to kill said red?
That scenario will deter many many pk encounters.
Final addition, skill gain excelled inside dungeons would open up a can of whoop ass if reds go unchecked.
You bring in a synergy of issues into pk’ing people you will get a few die hards who will do it, but curb the random rampant recall/gate into kill all blues and be out before a single person is accounted for.
I think you should have both ways with macro taking much more time/resources. Aside from that you should try 2 factions on 2.0.
Increase gains across all mobs (would need to ensure that people people can’t just gheal them and macro that way; the +0.1 scroll idea might work for this since you would need to kill them) as well as increased gains in certain regions. That way you can still get decent gains by harping on gargoyles in the boonies or go for the better gains with some added risk. You get increased player interactions while giving incentives to not just macro.
PS: Az, I think forums wouldn’t be too much of a nuisance to keep ‘clean’ given the nature of the posts being made here. Forums please ;p
I don’t think you understood my post, but to answer you: a bunch of reds will be waiting outside the dungeon. And that scenario will generate encounters, not deter them. Regardless of opinion, that’s outside the main point of my post.
I said, “If you’re going to implement accelerated skill gain, it’s extremely important to integrate it into the entire environment, not a centralized location.” The point is that incentivizing dungeons by themselves, and not any other area of the game world, de-incentivizes environments such as graveyards, orc camps, jungles, forests and towns.
Additionally, it’s a programmatic solution that fails to address the issue of unattended macroing, which is basis of the dungeon incentive concept in the first place, because it’s going to happen anyways.
I really believe the solution to fair skill gain is in it’s enforcement, and not it’s programming.
Seriously considering one server based on poll results and some of the replies here.
Az, http://connectuo.com/forum/ has boards set up specifically for finding scripters/coders. It may be worth checking out to see if anyone stands out so you can start building up a team again.
(forums pls)
To be honest, the level of discussion on this site is amazing and probably surpasses any level headed discussion I’ve seen anywhere else on the ups and downs of freeshards.
I would cast my lot in with einsacks, I think he is right on the money about most things. I think the problem with nostalgia is that while it is a powerful motivating force for many to play a freeshard, it suffers greatly from an anxiety of influence. Sure, we can recreate the approximate ‘feeling’ of an era in one category like pvp and blend with other areas in another category like pvm and arrive at some hybrid Frankenstein of a shard – but what differentiates it from the other populous freeservers out there? What makes it different than Hybrid? Than SecondAge? or Divinity? I’m not interested in the quotidian details of what would separate IPY x.0 from these current shards – but merely marking that there is a structural sort of barrier to mixing innovation with nostalgia – in a sense, it would have to be revolutionary and new.
I think there are several sort of theoretical ‘solutions’ to the problem of making the experience unique enough that it can survive the momentary onslaught of ‘walking pleasure centers’ (what a perfect description of the base). I think an obvious solution from the way this blog conducts itself is vanguardism – self policing communities like uo freeshards often are inevitably beset by cliques of powerful gamers. In practice this tends to revolve around powergaming in various levels of organization that then exert large amounts of influence both ingame and out of game; however, I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing – I think that if anything should be gleaned from einsacks post in particular is that one has to reconcile the inevitability of destructive gaming practices with the realities of a new gaming atmosphere that is infinitely more connected and insync than it was in UO’s prime (or really even in IPY 1.0′s prime). The obvious problem with vanguardism is that it is rarely sustainable people inevitably get bored with nostalgia and go do something else – the prime players and active contributors (or detractors) dissipate out of the world overtime, it really just is an issue of entropy and heat death for servers.
The question thus has to be sustainability and how? How does one conceptualize a new idea of a server that draws from the strengths of its base and predecessors? I think there is a lot to be learned just from studying the rise and fall of various freeshards over the past few years, particularly in the wake of the demise of IPY 1.0 – a lot of pitfalls have already been found to say the least.
There is probably an inherent problem with utilizing restrictive measures or punishment to discipline a community: no matter how vigilant your attempts at normalization will be, people will always strive to circumvent the system – internet culture has probably left all of us with some what of a hacker libertarian ethic.
So for example, concretely, restricting skill gain to levels so low that its like playing Siege Perilous at server up would probably discourage all but the most hardy of players – sure, the consume it all mindset of the instant gratification players is destructive, but how many hardcore dedicated vanguard players can be possibly expect to continue to play over an extended period of time – particularly in the interests of maintaining a server past that initial rush of starting out.
Alternatively, it seems like incentivizing certain play styles is probably a more effective regulatory mechanism – I would even dare to suggest that certain skills could be GM’d through completing a series of tasks/quests that would obliterate any possibility of people completely macroing their chars up.
Or, you’d need a new world with new dungeons and new spawns and new all kinds of things – you would basically be reworking a new game from the ashes of the old, the coded basics are there and it becomes a question of implementation. Unfortunately, this is an enormous task for anyone – let alone a group of volunteer coders and administrators.
This is probably quite a wall of text and I apologize for that. These problems do not seem easily solved and probably suffer most from inadequate formation and understanding – the UO player base is probably the most unruly of crowds ;/
“The question thus has to be sustainability and how? How does one conceptualize a new idea of a server that draws from the strengths of its base and predecessors? I think there is a lot to be learned just from studying the rise and fall of various freeshards over the past few years, particularly in the wake of the demise of IPY 1.0 – a lot of pitfalls have already been found to say the least.”
That’s the main question. I wrestle with it in a fight against what I know the conservative oldschool crowd demands – because the answer includes a lot of things that are obvious, straightforward, and give you games like EverQuest. The real trick is answering the question and staying true to UO. It’s a question that EA failed to answer in that particular spirit, and it’s my mission statement for this server.
On punishment and incentives:
My concentration is here too. I think a level of punishment is obviously needed, but incentives work better for the majority of the population. I don’t think anyone should be FORCED to play a certain way – part of the charm of UO is, and always has been, that people always find different ways to play with the tools given to them. But ‘playing’ doesn’t include EUO scripting a bot that runs around playing the game for you.
Create something new and wild while keeping with the “Open World/Wild West” type of backing the game had. The nostalgia of the game for me comes from that you are free to do pretty much anything you wish.
As long as you don’t add neon items/trammel its fine.
what’s wrong with neon items? it attrack a certain type of players and does not affect pvp at all.
I’ve always been a fan of the ‘neon’ hair colors that were available during the Clean Up Britannia phase, that is the ones that weren’t quite such a eyesore. I think there is a balance to be achieved with regards to neon stuffs – I think dedicated players being able to access neon hair and such is very different than neon mounts, weapons, clothing et al.
First time posting here and finding about this project.
In my opinion in order for UO to absolutely work, that is bring back old players and attract new is to revamp/rework the game completely while maintaining the integrity of the game engine. New items need to be created, with new skills, new lands, new monsters (new ai) and possibly new spells. However, it needs to be done methodically and with care. Neons won’t work because it seems out place for the time period and uo aesthetics. Changing the color of an air elemental and calling it a new monster wont work. Populating the world with endless amounts of monsters will fuck with the economy. Everything needs to be done with balance, while creating an world with maximum player interaction (adding the lost lands spread players out to much).
Risk vs rewards is huge. T2a style houses (Secures / change locks on house) ruined uo for me . There wasnt risk involved with housing anymore. I remember epic guild house battle pre 99,
Ill add more of my 2cents as the server develops.
Legacyofblood, maybe you have some specifics to add to your post. It is too general, everybody knows that would be cool but the problem is is that it is really difficult to revamp a game, whilst maintaining the balance.
I played a couple of Sphere shards (with a lot of fun) and the neons didnt bother me at all, you get used to it and after a while you start to like them.
In the end its all about enjoying the positive sides and accepting and getting used to the negative aspects.
I wouldnt worry too much Az about your hardcore group of players you dont want to upset, it seems that it holds you back.
Lefty
Yeah, but Faust will call me names on messageboards. ;(