the fact that they changed doesnt prove that "everybody was leaving because it was a total gankfest" it only proves that they wanted to take the game in another direction ......period
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
perhaps you havent read what I have posted ...I have not said that the devs didnt say what your claiming because I dont know....I am saying that the game wasnt a failure up to that point....maybe the devs thought it was ...but to me and just about anyone you ask who actually played pre-trammel and post that they prefered pre-trammel
did you play the game post-trammel?
I could care less what the devs said that fact remains trammel ruined UO.....and if ya find someone that (besides yourself obviously) that disagrees I will be highly surprised.
UO had 100,000 subscribers within 6 months of release...that was a major surprise to them....yes I think UO's highest subscription numbers came post trammel....EA brought in trammel to try and compete with EQ regardles of what the devs say.....they seen EQ number sky-rocket and thought with trammel they could keep there 100k that were in fellucia and get carebears to join trammel.........theres no facts to back this up ...UO was not a failure pre-trammel.....if there was a MMO hall of fame this game would be the first one inducted because of pre-trammel.
the fact that they changed doesnt prove that "everybody was leaving because it was a total gankfest" it only proves that they wanted to take the game in another direction ......period
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
Lol wow this is completely untrue i was on Atlantic from day 1 for 10 years ..Never saw anything remotley resembling these comments...
What i do remember at the time of Trammel talk starting was the Land Rush being the biggest bitch of players with no land left and new players joining and wanting housing,(yes it was pre-trammel and there were to many people wanting housing )Proof that pre-trammel wasnt failing at all but rather a growing community..
This is were the real failure of UO started as an internal struggle began between EA vs Richard Garriot and Starr Long... EA wanted Trammel to kill 2 birds quickly with 1 stone.. By intoducing Trammel more land and a place for the carebears to go.. This was failure of UO it broke the community mechanic .. This was 1st battle of EA vs RG and SL that eventaully pushed Garriot and Long out .. EA slowly destroyed UO and RG's vision ..
Garriot and Long didnt want Trammel.. they wanted to expand in the vison that kept to the Britanica lore.. But would have taken more time.. EA didnt feel they had the time ...
I have said it before in this thread ...every possible spot to place a house was taken on every server pre-trammel. houses had to be refreshed to keep them there....how in the hell is this considered a failing game?
Very good point, and anyone who was anyone knows there were thousands upon thousands of spots on each server, and you were only allowed to own one house per account only a few short months into the game. I should know, for a while I was trying to get into the whole buying/selling/cross-shard trading thing to make some quick E-bay cash, and it was still nearly impossible to find housing spots on ANY server. I tried them all, none were 'near death'
I have said it before in this thread ...every possible spot to place a house was taken on every server pre-trammel. houses had to be refreshed to keep them there....how in the hell is this considered a failing game?
Very good point, and anyone who was anyone knows there were thousands upon thousands of spots on each server, and you were only allowed to own one house per account only a few short months into the game. I should know, for a while I was trying to get into the whole buying/selling/cross-shard trading thing to make some quick E-bay cash, and it was still nearly impossible to find housing spots on ANY server. I tried them all, none were 'near death'
I was actually looking foward to trammel because me and my wife had saved enough for a tower and wanted to place it.......we got it placed but I didnt relize how boring trammel would be without the pk'ers until it was too late.
UO had 100,000 subscribers within 6 months of release...that was a major surprise to them....yes I think UO's highest subscription numbers came post trammel....EA brought in trammel to try and compete with EQ regardles of what the devs say.....they seen EQ number sky-rocket and thought with trammel they could keep there 100k that were in fellucia and get carebears to join trammel.........theres no facts to back this up ...UO was not a failure pre-trammel.....if there was a MMO hall of fame this game would be the first one inducted because of pre-trammel.
when UO came out it was the only MMORPG, it had no competitiion. So peopled stayed even though it was a total gankfest. When other options appeared, ala Everquest, everyone left.
I remember when DAOC opened up full pvp servers, they failed miserably
Asherons call darktide has failed
Shadowbane has failed
Every game with fully open pvp and full looting has failed.
when UO came out it was the only MMORPG, it had no competitiion. So peopled stayed even though it was a total gankfest. When other options appeared, ala Everquest, everyone left. I remember when DAOC opened up full pvp servers, they failed miserably Asherons call darktide has failed Shadowbane has failed Every game with fully open pvp and full looting has failed. And yet you keep saying how everyone loves it?
UO was already out for a while when Trammel came out and altering a game that much always alienates some of the fan base. Time that with the release of new, 3D Graphic MMORPGs coming out and of course people would move on to new things.
Those other games you mentioned failed for other reasons. Had they no open PvP they probably would have failed even worse.
DAOC's idea of "free PvP' was ridiculous. There were no safe-zones of any kind.
In UO, the chances of being PK'd were not that high unless you were a friggin idiot. There were places where PKs loved to hang out and the only reason to go there would be to fight them. This was cool.
Point is, as long as you were even mildly good enough or smart enough - you were never ganked.
If you were, it's because you suck at videogames and maybe you should stick to your easy MMORPGs.
UO(pre-UOR) = Normal Mode
Other MMORPGs = Easy Mode
The only people who are "good" at the new MMOs are people who have no lives and can spend 24/hrs a day leveling and getting new items.
Darkfall won't have to be a huge success for me to enjoy it. With the hype it has, it will have at least enough subscribers for people like me to have fun (hoping its as good as UO anyway).
Also, ganking (which wasn't frequent as long as you aren't a retard when it comes to games) was GOOD.
It provides motive for "revenge" within the game. It gives the game a plot when you're PK'd. You actually have FUN when you come back to try and avenge yourself.
In these other games, the only reason to PvP is because the other people chose a different Race class you did when they first started the game. How is that fun?
PvP within MMOs needs to be personal to be fun. The more you know/dislike about your enemy, the more fun it is to play against them.
UO had 100,000 subscribers within 6 months of release...that was a major surprise to them....yes I think UO's highest subscription numbers came post trammel....EA brought in trammel to try and compete with EQ regardles of what the devs say.....they seen EQ number sky-rocket and thought with trammel they could keep there 100k that were in fellucia and get carebears to join trammel.........theres no facts to back this up ...UO was not a failure pre-trammel.....if there was a MMO hall of fame this game would be the first one inducted because of pre-trammel.
when UO came out it was the only MMORPG, it had no competitiion. So peopled stayed even though it was a total gankfest. When other options appeared, ala Everquest, everyone left.
I remember when DAOC opened up full pvp servers, they failed miserably
Asherons call darktide has failed
Shadowbane has failed
Every game with fully open pvp and full looting has failed.
And yet you keep saying how everyone loves it?
Couldn't you try to be a bit more one-dimensional?
Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or do you just flap your gums without thinking for yourself?
Asherons Call Darktide survived longer than most of the releases of the last 3 years.
Shadowbane failed because it was a piss poor game.
DAoC Andred/Mordred failed because they had not created a PvP game. They had just taken the ordinary game and made it FFA. That works poorly in an environment, where levels puts such a huge gap between players power-wise.
Don't just blindly look for arguments to support your point of view. You will come off as being biased, and therefore lose credibility.
Couldn't you try to be a bit more one-dimensional? Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or do you just flap your gums without thinking for yourself?
Asherons Call Darktide survived longer than most of the releases of the last 3 years. Shadowbane failed because it was a piss poor game. DAoC Andred/Mordred failed because they had not created a PvP game. They had just taken the ordinary game and made it FFA. That works poorly in an environment, where levels puts such a huge gap between players power-wise.
Don't just blindly look for arguments to support your point of view. You will come off as being biased, and therefore lose credibility.
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
Couldn't you try to be a bit more one-dimensional? Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or do you just flap your gums without thinking for yourself?
Asherons Call Darktide survived longer than most of the releases of the last 3 years. Shadowbane failed because it was a piss poor game. DAoC Andred/Mordred failed because they had not created a PvP game. They had just taken the ordinary game and made it FFA. That works poorly in an environment, where levels puts such a huge gap between players power-wise.
Don't just blindly look for arguments to support your point of view. You will come off as being biased, and therefore lose credibility.
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
That is my big fear with Darkfall and the 'sandbox' label. So many players (myself included) would love to play a really good sandbox game. The probelm is, Darkfall is NOT the game to make the 'proof a sandbox game can work".
I'm afraid when Darkfall fails, other developers and companies will say " see, sandbox games don't work". I would much rather a company like Blizzard or Bioware be the one making the poster child for sandbox games.
The problem hasn't been with PvP games in general, the problem is that warhammer, AOC and shadowbane all happened to be crappy games.
Couldn't you try to be a bit more one-dimensional? Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or do you just flap your gums without thinking for yourself?
Asherons Call Darktide survived longer than most of the releases of the last 3 years. Shadowbane failed because it was a piss poor game. DAoC Andred/Mordred failed because they had not created a PvP game. They had just taken the ordinary game and made it FFA. That works poorly in an environment, where levels puts such a huge gap between players power-wise.
Don't just blindly look for arguments to support your point of view. You will come off as being biased, and therefore lose credibility.
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
That is my big fear with Darkfall and the 'sandbox' label. So many players (myself included) would love to play a really good sandbox game. The probelm is, Darkfall is NOT the game to make the 'proof a sandbox game can work".
I'm afraid when Darkfall fails, other developers and companies will say " see, sandbox games don't work". I would much rather a company like Blizzard or Bioware be the one making the poster child for sandbox games.
The problem hasn't been with PvP games in general, the problem is that warhammer, AOC and shadowbane all happened to be crappy games.
Ghoul31 and Alandora, why are you even here? Noone is forcing you to play this game, lol.
If you don't like it, then go back to the carebear games, that is where 98% of the players are, and that is what 90% of the games caters to. You don't NEED DF - and DF definitely don't need you.
Ghoul31 and Alandora, why are you even here? Noone is forcing you to play this game, lol. If you don't like it, then go back to the carebear games, that is where 98% of the players are, and that is what 90% of the games caters to. You don't NEED DF - and DF definitely don't need you.
I like open pvp games. I have been playing Shadowbane since release. But the facts are that most people don't. So to say that tons of people will love open pvp and full looting is just nonsense.
Shadowbane has almost everything Darkfall will have. And there is only a couple thousand people playing it.
Ghoul31 and Alandora, why are you even here? Noone is forcing you to play this game, lol. If you don't like it, then go back to the carebear games, that is where 98% of the players are, and that is what 90% of the games caters to. You don't NEED DF - and DF definitely don't need you.
I like open pvp games. I have been playing Shadowbane since release. But the facts are that most people don't. So to say that tons of people will love open pvp and full looting is just nonsense.
Shadowbane has almost everything Darkfall will have. And there is only a couple thousand people playing it.
Then STFU with the whining and rejoice, because a PvP game is coming!
Why the hell would you want a massive amount of PvE'ers to play your PvP game? They will just turn it into another WoW clone, like they did with UO and SWG.
Then STFU with the whining and rejoice, because a PvP game is coming! Why the hell would you want a massive amount of PvE'ers to play your PvP game? They will just turn it into another WoW clone, like they did with UO and SWG.
Because 2,000 people is not enough people to keep a game going. I would rather Darkfall be a little less hardcore, so it will have enough players to keep it going forever.
If you make it too hardcore , it will close after a year because there aren't enough players to keep it going.
Then STFU with the whining and rejoice, because a PvP game is coming! Why the hell would you want a massive amount of PvE'ers to play your PvP game? They will just turn it into another WoW clone, like they did with UO and SWG.
Because 2,000 people is not enough people to keep a game going. I would rather Darkfall be a little less hardcore, so it will have enough players to keep it going forever.
If you make it too hardcore , it will close after a year because there aren't enough players to keep it going.
How the hell do you know that 2000 isn't enough? It depends on the business model.
2000 * 15 * 12 = 360.000 $ a year.
Can you with confidence say, that that isn't enough, without knowing the company? And then look at the amount they will be hauling in, if they get 4k, 10k, 20k.
You don't have to be WoW to be successful. These games bring in much more than you realize.
And why in the world would you think, that they would only get 2000 subscribers?? 50.000 has been signed up on the DF board for years, and if they have followed the game for that long, they must be kinda hardcore, and it is very probable that they will try the game. If you add the new people on the board, there is way beyond 100.000 signed up. At least some of the new people must be willing to play the game, since they went through the trouble of signing up.
Polls on UO boards an eternity ago, showed that about 10% of the player population is PvP'ers. If that holds true, there is a potential pool of millions of customers. Add to that, that DF is a FPS kind of game, and you may tap into the massive FPS crowd, that MMOG's have always had notoriously big problems attracting.
Stop your whining, and wait and see. There is less than a month to release. If this is really what you want, what's up with that negative nancy attitude? Instead spend your energy on something else - like saying goodbye to your family, because you are gonna play DF for the next years
I will agree with a lot of this but this game is not UO. THe first thing listed is the exploits which from what I can tell are still rampant in UO (AskChopper.com anyone)?
I still think time will tell though. Technology has advanced. PVP (and mmorpg altogether for that matter) are no longer new concepts and I think it was really the exploits that made pvp turn people off in UO.
If you want to talk about suck look at WoW pvp. The classes have never been balanced (and even if they were it is still all about armor). WoW is point and click (and UO was too).
Darkfall seems to make you actually need some skills.
And so there are definitely things that will need to be seen and so while I agree with most of this post regarding UO I think it is premature to assume this game is trying to be like them. Darkfall seems to share a lot of the features of UO but I think they might be coming with something of there own as well. Hopefully better as I am hoping this will be the game to save me from WoW.
Originally posted by ghoul31 Getting ganked was 10 man gank groups all day was not fun. Which is why these games always fail.
You should have gathered some friends to handle them... Or just, go somewhere else? The world was huge. People who went to places like the Brit Graveyard went there to PvP, if you didn't want to die when you went there, then get better or stop going. It'd be like the guy who gets shot by a camper in a FPS and keeps walking in front of him to get shot over and over. Who's fault is that?
And when Darkfall fails, you will say it was for "other reasons", not the open pvp and full looting. Some people never learn
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
And when Darkfall fails, you will say it was for "other reasons", not the open pvp and full looting. Some people never learn
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
The creators of UO Richard Garriot and Starr Long had nothing to do with its changes or its failures ..Trammel and everything after were EA s baby .. they pushed RG and SL off the dev at that point and soon after bought them out...If they had been able to stick to there vision this thread would not exist..
the fact that they changed doesnt prove that "everybody was leaving because it was a total gankfest" it only proves that they wanted to take the game in another direction ......period
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
Lol wow this is completely untrue i was on Atlantic from day 1 for 10 years ..Never saw anything remotley resembling these comments...
What i do remember at the time of Trammel talk starting was the Land Rush being the biggest bitch of players with no land left and new players joining and wanting housing,(yes it was pre-trammel and there were to many people wanting housing )Proof that pre-trammel wasnt failing at all but rather a growing community..
This is were the real failure of UO started as an internal struggle began between EA vs Richard Garriot and Starr Long... EA wanted Trammel to kill 2 birds quickly with 1 stone.. By intoducing Trammel more land and a place for the carebears to go.. This was failure of UO it broke the community mechanic .. This was 1st battle of EA vs RG and SL that eventaully pushed Garriot and Long out .. EA slowly destroyed UO and RG's vision ..
Garriot and Long didnt want Trammel.. they wanted to expand in the vison that kept to the Britanica lore.. But would have taken more time.. EA didnt feel they had the time ...
And when Darkfall fails, you will say it was for "other reasons", not the open pvp and full looting. Some people never learn
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
The creators of UO Richard Garriot and Starr Long had nothing to do with its changes or its failures ..Trammel and everything after were EA s baby .. they pushed RG and SL off the dev at that point and soon after bought them out...If they had been able to stick to there vision this thread would not exist..
I know, that's why I said it'd have been still going strong if Richard had stayed instead of being so flaky (didn't he leave Tabula Rasa so he can go back into space again?). After they left, it went to shit because EA changed the game to try and compete with Everquest/Carebear games.
Comments
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
perhaps you havent read what I have posted ...I have not said that the devs didnt say what your claiming because I dont know....I am saying that the game wasnt a failure up to that point....maybe the devs thought it was ...but to me and just about anyone you ask who actually played pre-trammel and post that they prefered pre-trammel
did you play the game post-trammel?
I could care less what the devs said that fact remains trammel ruined UO.....and if ya find someone that (besides yourself obviously) that disagrees I will be highly surprised.
UO had 100,000 subscribers within 6 months of release...that was a major surprise to them....yes I think UO's highest subscription numbers came post trammel....EA brought in trammel to try and compete with EQ regardles of what the devs say.....they seen EQ number sky-rocket and thought with trammel they could keep there 100k that were in fellucia and get carebears to join trammel.........theres no facts to back this up ...UO was not a failure pre-trammel.....if there was a MMO hall of fame this game would be the first one inducted because of pre-trammel.
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
Lol wow this is completely untrue i was on Atlantic from day 1 for 10 years ..Never saw anything remotley resembling these comments...
What i do remember at the time of Trammel talk starting was the Land Rush being the biggest bitch of players with no land left and new players joining and wanting housing,(yes it was pre-trammel and there were to many people wanting housing )Proof that pre-trammel wasnt failing at all but rather a growing community..
This is were the real failure of UO started as an internal struggle began between EA vs Richard Garriot and Starr Long... EA wanted Trammel to kill 2 birds quickly with 1 stone.. By intoducing Trammel more land and a place for the carebears to go.. This was failure of UO it broke the community mechanic .. This was 1st battle of EA vs RG and SL that eventaully pushed Garriot and Long out .. EA slowly destroyed UO and RG's vision ..
Garriot and Long didnt want Trammel.. they wanted to expand in the vison that kept to the Britanica lore.. But would have taken more time.. EA didnt feel they had the time ...
I have said it before in this thread ...every possible spot to place a house was taken on every server pre-trammel.
houses had to be refreshed to keep them there....how in the hell is this considered a failing game?
Very good point, and anyone who was anyone knows there were thousands upon thousands of spots on each server, and you were only allowed to own one house per account only a few short months into the game. I should know, for a while I was trying to get into the whole buying/selling/cross-shard trading thing to make some quick E-bay cash, and it was still nearly impossible to find housing spots on ANY server. I tried them all, none were 'near death'
Very good point, and anyone who was anyone knows there were thousands upon thousands of spots on each server, and you were only allowed to own one house per account only a few short months into the game. I should know, for a while I was trying to get into the whole buying/selling/cross-shard trading thing to make some quick E-bay cash, and it was still nearly impossible to find housing spots on ANY server. I tried them all, none were 'near death'
I was actually looking foward to trammel because me and my wife had saved enough for a tower and wanted to place it.......we got it placed but I didnt relize how boring trammel would be without the pk'ers until it was too late.
when UO came out it was the only MMORPG, it had no competitiion. So peopled stayed even though it was a total gankfest. When other options appeared, ala Everquest, everyone left.
I remember when DAOC opened up full pvp servers, they failed miserably
Asherons call darktide has failed
Shadowbane has failed
Every game with fully open pvp and full looting has failed.
And yet you keep saying how everyone loves it?
UO was already out for a while when Trammel came out and altering a game that much always alienates some of the fan base. Time that with the release of new, 3D Graphic MMORPGs coming out and of course people would move on to new things.
Those other games you mentioned failed for other reasons. Had they no open PvP they probably would have failed even worse.
DAOC's idea of "free PvP' was ridiculous. There were no safe-zones of any kind.
In UO, the chances of being PK'd were not that high unless you were a friggin idiot. There were places where PKs loved to hang out and the only reason to go there would be to fight them. This was cool.
Point is, as long as you were even mildly good enough or smart enough - you were never ganked.
If you were, it's because you suck at videogames and maybe you should stick to your easy MMORPGs.
UO(pre-UOR) = Normal Mode
Other MMORPGs = Easy Mode
The only people who are "good" at the new MMOs are people who have no lives and can spend 24/hrs a day leveling and getting new items.
Darkfall won't have to be a huge success for me to enjoy it. With the hype it has, it will have at least enough subscribers for people like me to have fun (hoping its as good as UO anyway).
Also, ganking (which wasn't frequent as long as you aren't a retard when it comes to games) was GOOD.
It provides motive for "revenge" within the game. It gives the game a plot when you're PK'd. You actually have FUN when you come back to try and avenge yourself.
In these other games, the only reason to PvP is because the other people chose a different Race class you did when they first started the game. How is that fun?
PvP within MMOs needs to be personal to be fun. The more you know/dislike about your enemy, the more fun it is to play against them.
Getting ganked was 10 man gank groups all day was not fun. Which is why these games always fail.
And when Darkfall fails, you will say it was for "other reasons", not the open pvp and full looting.
Some people never learn
when UO came out it was the only MMORPG, it had no competitiion. So peopled stayed even though it was a total gankfest. When other options appeared, ala Everquest, everyone left.
I remember when DAOC opened up full pvp servers, they failed miserably
Asherons call darktide has failed
Shadowbane has failed
Every game with fully open pvp and full looting has failed.
And yet you keep saying how everyone loves it?
Couldn't you try to be a bit more one-dimensional?
Do you have a single independent thought in your head, or do you just flap your gums without thinking for yourself?
Asherons Call Darktide survived longer than most of the releases of the last 3 years.
Shadowbane failed because it was a piss poor game.
DAoC Andred/Mordred failed because they had not created a PvP game. They had just taken the ordinary game and made it FFA. That works poorly in an environment, where levels puts such a huge gap between players power-wise.
Don't just blindly look for arguments to support your point of view. You will come off as being biased, and therefore lose credibility.
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
That is my big fear with Darkfall and the 'sandbox' label. So many players (myself included) would love to play a really good sandbox game. The probelm is, Darkfall is NOT the game to make the 'proof a sandbox game can work".
I'm afraid when Darkfall fails, other developers and companies will say " see, sandbox games don't work". I would much rather a company like Blizzard or Bioware be the one making the poster child for sandbox games.
The problem hasn't been with PvP games in general, the problem is that warhammer, AOC and shadowbane all happened to be crappy games.
Waiting for this thread to die.....
You are the one who has no credibility. Every pvp game that comes out fails. And you just make excuses for every one. It just make you look really bad.
That is my big fear with Darkfall and the 'sandbox' label. So many players (myself included) would love to play a really good sandbox game. The probelm is, Darkfall is NOT the game to make the 'proof a sandbox game can work".
I'm afraid when Darkfall fails, other developers and companies will say " see, sandbox games don't work". I would much rather a company like Blizzard or Bioware be the one making the poster child for sandbox games.
The problem hasn't been with PvP games in general, the problem is that warhammer, AOC and shadowbane all happened to be crappy games.
Ghoul31 and Alandora, why are you even here? Noone is forcing you to play this game, lol.
If you don't like it, then go back to the carebear games, that is where 98% of the players are, and that is what 90% of the games caters to. You don't NEED DF - and DF definitely don't need you.
I like open pvp games. I have been playing Shadowbane since release. But the facts are that most people don't. So to say that tons of people will love open pvp and full looting is just nonsense.
Shadowbane has almost everything Darkfall will have. And there is only a couple thousand people playing it.
I like open pvp games. I have been playing Shadowbane since release. But the facts are that most people don't. So to say that tons of people will love open pvp and full looting is just nonsense.
Shadowbane has almost everything Darkfall will have. And there is only a couple thousand people playing it.
Then STFU with the whining and rejoice, because a PvP game is coming!
Why the hell would you want a massive amount of PvE'ers to play your PvP game? They will just turn it into another WoW clone, like they did with UO and SWG.
Because 2,000 people is not enough people to keep a game going. I would rather Darkfall be a little less hardcore, so it will have enough players to keep it going forever.
If you make it too hardcore , it will close after a year because there aren't enough players to keep it going.
Because 2,000 people is not enough people to keep a game going. I would rather Darkfall be a little less hardcore, so it will have enough players to keep it going forever.
If you make it too hardcore , it will close after a year because there aren't enough players to keep it going.
How the hell do you know that 2000 isn't enough? It depends on the business model.
2000 * 15 * 12 = 360.000 $ a year.
Can you with confidence say, that that isn't enough, without knowing the company? And then look at the amount they will be hauling in, if they get 4k, 10k, 20k.
You don't have to be WoW to be successful. These games bring in much more than you realize.
And why in the world would you think, that they would only get 2000 subscribers?? 50.000 has been signed up on the DF board for years, and if they have followed the game for that long, they must be kinda hardcore, and it is very probable that they will try the game. If you add the new people on the board, there is way beyond 100.000 signed up. At least some of the new people must be willing to play the game, since they went through the trouble of signing up.
Polls on UO boards an eternity ago, showed that about 10% of the player population is PvP'ers. If that holds true, there is a potential pool of millions of customers. Add to that, that DF is a FPS kind of game, and you may tap into the massive FPS crowd, that MMOG's have always had notoriously big problems attracting.
Stop your whining, and wait and see. There is less than a month to release. If this is really what you want, what's up with that negative nancy attitude? Instead spend your energy on something else - like saying goodbye to your family, because you are gonna play DF for the next years
I will agree with a lot of this but this game is not UO. THe first thing listed is the exploits which from what I can tell are still rampant in UO (AskChopper.com anyone)?
I still think time will tell though. Technology has advanced. PVP (and mmorpg altogether for that matter) are no longer new concepts and I think it was really the exploits that made pvp turn people off in UO.
If you want to talk about suck look at WoW pvp. The classes have never been balanced (and even if they were it is still all about armor). WoW is point and click (and UO was too).
Darkfall seems to make you actually need some skills.
And so there are definitely things that will need to be seen and so while I agree with most of this post regarding UO I think it is premature to assume this game is trying to be like them. Darkfall seems to share a lot of the features of UO but I think they might be coming with something of there own as well. Hopefully better as I am hoping this will be the game to save me from WoW.
You should have gathered some friends to handle them... Or just, go somewhere else? The world was huge. People who went to places like the Brit Graveyard went there to PvP, if you didn't want to die when you went there, then get better or stop going. It'd be like the guy who gets shot by a camper in a FPS and keeps walking in front of him to get shot over and over. Who's fault is that?
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
The creators of UO Richard Garriot and Starr Long had nothing to do with its changes or its failures ..Trammel and everything after were EA s baby .. they pushed RG and SL off the dev at that point and soon after bought them out...If they had been able to stick to there vision this thread would not exist..
just look at wolfmann said. If you want to know where he got it, ask him. He has no reason to lie about this. But go ahead and call him a liar anyway. I'm sure you will
"If my memory doesn't fail me, I remember something I read somewhere, from one of the developers of UO.
The Retention rate, as in the boxes sold vs people stayin was very low on UO before trammel.
They had to keep a agressive ad campaign going to get new blood into the game to keep growing, as they were losing alot of people per month. (Even in NORWEGIAN smalltime computer magazines they bought ad space)
According to the dev, and I believe him, since I was there witnessing it first hand (Not a hardcore PK'er, am a casual player/RP'er), almost all of the people who left, stated it was the frantic PK'ing.
Heck, back then, the town had a iron ring of PK'ers around it, and there were not enough Anti PK'ers(despite PK and anti PK claiming otherwise), and you barely could get out of town without running into one of tens of bands of PK'ers(who incidently didn't fight amongst themselves, but only against people trying to leave town).
So, Trammel was built and released, to counter those issues, and it worked. Alot less people left the game, and they in a time when they had competition and falling box sales(the box sales that had kept them still growing), UO kept on growing..."
Lol wow this is completely untrue i was on Atlantic from day 1 for 10 years ..Never saw anything remotley resembling these comments...
What i do remember at the time of Trammel talk starting was the Land Rush being the biggest bitch of players with no land left and new players joining and wanting housing,(yes it was pre-trammel and there were to many people wanting housing )Proof that pre-trammel wasnt failing at all but rather a growing community..
This is were the real failure of UO started as an internal struggle began between EA vs Richard Garriot and Starr Long... EA wanted Trammel to kill 2 birds quickly with 1 stone.. By intoducing Trammel more land and a place for the carebears to go.. This was failure of UO it broke the community mechanic .. This was 1st battle of EA vs RG and SL that eventaully pushed Garriot and Long out .. EA slowly destroyed UO and RG's vision ..
Garriot and Long didnt want Trammel.. they wanted to expand in the vison that kept to the Britanica lore.. But would have taken more time.. EA didnt feel they had the time ...
in case you missed it .. lol
UO didn't fail.
It did change, though. If UO's creator wasn't a crazy weirdo who wanted to travel in space, it'd have a great sequel or two by now.
UO has done the most with the genre. So far, everything else has be an Everquest clone. Darkfall is going back to the UO model, which the genre seems to be craving.
If Darkfall fails, it'll be because the game sucks not because it tried to be like UO.
If UO came out today with an updated graphic engine similar to WoW's and a ruleset of UO PreTrammel, it'd be #1.
The creators of UO Richard Garriot and Starr Long had nothing to do with its changes or its failures ..Trammel and everything after were EA s baby .. they pushed RG and SL off the dev at that point and soon after bought them out...If they had been able to stick to there vision this thread would not exist..
I know, that's why I said it'd have been still going strong if Richard had stayed instead of being so flaky (didn't he leave Tabula Rasa so he can go back into space again?). After they left, it went to shit because EA changed the game to try and compete with Everquest/Carebear games.