Don't forget that there are so incredibly many mmorpg that failed because they tried to target the carebears as their audience. They tried making wow clones and making everything as consensual and safe as they can, theme park mmorpgs. Incredibly many stupid dev studios have tried this and wasted so much time and money down the drain.
Their problem is that when they try to target the biggest demographic, they will have so many competitors that it's almost impossible to succeed. That's where the statistic comes from about 99% of games fail because they try to compete against games like WoW.
no you are not the demographic just because you've played these games.
Many carebears have played those games and hated it and complained about it and then quit before or after they got what they wanted. So just because you've played those games means nothing.
You are basically saying "hey i dont think tennis can be a popular sport because why would they want to run around chasing that ball when they can just play ping pong instead".
You keep saying over and over different things that just shows you are not the target audience for these games.
The point is these games have no significant target audience.
You won't say it but I will: The target audience is UO '98 players who ran around on T1 lines, teleporting from noob zone to noob zone, and murdering hundreds of other players in an evening.
Let me be clear, those days aren't coming back.
It isn't because nobody has done it right. It is because that system is fundamentally broken and it cannot be done right. A game that allows paying customers to constantly force fed losing battles from trash talking sociopaths cannot be fixed. So yeah, in that sense I'm not the target audience because I'm not an asshole.
Now if you mean PvP where evenly matched players can battle, or where a sane justice system works, or where PvE players can take on additional risk for rewards - yeah, I'm all about that.
The pink haired trash talking full loot exploiters got voted off the island. Nobody misses those guys, except themselves.
Like I've said many times already, you're wrong, you simply don't know what you're talking about. You think that's all there is to it but that just shows you're the wrong demographic and don't know what you're talking about.
Now you will keep on repeating yourself 100 times I know. Just keep on repeating same propaganda over and over to make sure that only your voice is heard and everyone else gets drowned out by yours shouting the loudest.
No, the FFA full loot crowd gets drown out by the care bears and their wallets.
I'm just going to put this out, If you all getting killed in the wallet area, you all need to rise up and do better
If they are willing to spend money and you are not, it's your own damn fault the devs are making a product for them, and not you
Want that to change, open your wallet and spend money, if you think voting with your wallet means not spending money, you have been played my brother, voting with your wallet means spending money on what you want
Think of your money like breadcrumbs. The pidgins in the times square No matter how little or much someone tosses, as long as they are tossing some crumbs the pigeons will follow, but if you are not tossing anything, the pigeons will show no interest in you.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Don't forget that there are so incredibly many mmorpg that failed because they tried to target the carebears as their audience. They tried making wow clones and making everything as consensual and safe as they can, theme park mmorpgs. Incredibly many stupid dev studios have tried this and wasted so much time and money down the drain.
Their problem is that when they try to target the biggest demographic, they will have so many competitors that it's almost impossible to succeed. That's where the statistic comes from about 99% of games fail because they try to compete against games like WoW.
Every genre has its failures, we can all agree on that.
The problem is your proposed full loot open world vertical progression idea has had no real success. You can claim it is because nobody does it right - implying you know so much more than 100s of game developers - the full loot pvp crowd, the hubris tracks.
Here's the thing, you're not wrong for having a game preference.
There is nothing wrong with wanting what you want in a game - but nobody has pulled it off to great market success. They've all been niche games (I don't know if Eve Online qualifies, Kyleran would have to speak to that) - but that's okay.
The objection isn't to your preference, the objection is to the claims that there are hoards of people out there wanting that style of game.
The demographic is very small as to be inconsequential.
If you doubt that consider Fractured Online as a tiny example. There is inventory looting in that game on 1/2 the map - and the bad guys cannot get my armor/weapon (my biggest investment); however, even with huge limitations like this 3/4 of my guild left because they hated having their inventory looted. They would lose 20 minutes of farming and simply leave.
People hate having their things taken from them - period. Games that feature unpleasant experiences just aren't going to be big.
Feel free to list a single game that was a market success that featured open world PvP/Full loot/vertical progression that didn't immediately begin to back pedal within a year of release.
Don't forget that there are so incredibly many mmorpg that failed because they tried to target the carebears as their audience. They tried making wow clones and making everything as consensual and safe as they can, theme park mmorpgs. Incredibly many stupid dev studios have tried this and wasted so much time and money down the drain.
Their problem is that when they try to target the biggest demographic, they will have so many competitors that it's almost impossible to succeed. That's where the statistic comes from about 99% of games fail because they try to compete against games like WoW.
Every genre has its failures, we can all agree on that.
The problem is your proposed full loot open world vertical progression idea has had no real success. You can claim it is because nobody does it right - implying you know so much more than 100s of game developers - the full loot pvp crowd, the hubris tracks.
Here's the thing, you're not wrong for having a game preference.
There is nothing wrong with wanting what you want in a game - but nobody has pulled it off to great market success. They've all been niche games (I don't know if Eve Online qualifies, Kyleran would have to speak to that) - but that's okay.
The objection isn't to your preference, the objection is to the claims that there are hoards of people out there wanting that style of game.
The demographic is very small as to be inconsequential.
If you doubt that consider Fractured Online as a tiny example. There is inventory looting in that game on 1/2 the map - and the bad guys cannot get my armor/weapon (my biggest investment); however, even with huge limitations like this 3/4 of my guild left because they hated having their inventory looted. They would lose 20 minutes of farming and simply leave.
People hate having their things taken from them - period. Games that feature unpleasant experiences just aren't going to be big.
Feel free to list a single game that was a market success that featured open world PvP/Full loot/vertical progression that didn't immediately begin to back pedal within a year of release.
I'm waiting.
See there you go again with writing hundreds of lies and proving for the 1000th time you aren't the demographic and have no idea what you're talking about saying things like it can't work because no one likes having their things taken from them. This is just so incredibly stupid to listen to. I think i might just give up bothering to reply further, you will not stop your propaganda with lies. But I think it doesn't matter anyway because anyone who's not a carebear will easily be able to come to the same conclusion as I have when they read your propaganda and they'll just ignore it.
The only thing you got right is that this genre is a niche genre but that's a good thing for devs because it's easier to target a niche audience than it is to try and compete against the big carebears mainstream studios.
And its factually true that most of the devs really do fail by making catastrophic releases, game breaking bugs etc. Like I said before I'm not going to repeat myself to a propaganda troll by listing all the game specific examples again.
And you keep on lying about there not existing any successful games in this genre as well even though people keep telling you games that are successful. You are textbook propaganda troll who hates this genre and anyone can see that unless they are also a carebear.
And you keep on lying about there not existing any successful games in this genre as well even though people keep telling you games that are successful. You are textbook propaganda troll who hates this genre and anyone can see that unless they are also a carebear.
Feel free to provide the names of widely successful full loot/open world/vertical progression (1) games that have been a roaring market success.
You can call me a troll. Fine. Name the game. You can call me a liar. Fine. Name the game. You can call me a propaganda. Fine. Name the game.
Flail your arms, accuse me of lying, throw around the term 'carebear' all you like.
Name the successful game that meets the criteria.
I'm still waiting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES 1: Full Loot: To the victor goes all the inventory, armor, and weapons. 2: Open world: No zones with varying PvP rulesets (with exception of safety in cities) 3: Vertical Progression: Significant power difference between noobs and geared vets.
Oh, and yellingcrabgrass, for your next 3 insulting posts full of off-topic attacks that refuse to actually deal with the question at hand, just assume my response is "name the game".
Anyone who thinks open world full loot is a winning formula should be banned from the internet. We've been listening to this nonsense for 20 years - 20 years of listening to everyone else get blamed for other people behaving poorly.
It's a matter of expectations. Albion Online as of a year ago had over 300k "active users". I think by ANY measure Albion Online has been a success and thus refutes your statement
Don't fall into the trap of making an echo chamber. There are players that like full loot open world PvP. But they also want a fun game that includes this feature. The feature alone is not sufficient.
As for your first sentence.. well.. yeah.. red flag
Albion isn't open world, full loot PvP. Albion has zones - and the players dress down into cheap gear when going into PvP zones.
Compare with UO where all zones (except cities) were full loot.
Also, one only need to consider the direction in which Albion is heading - according to what I've read, in the direction of more PvE and a dialing back a little bit on the PvP focus.
I'd cite Albion as an example of the point I'm making.
As for agreeing with Ungood, it feels dirty, but sometimes he does stumble into a valid point.
I'm not going to get into it cause it's not a hill to die on but Albion Online is absolutely an open world full loot PvP game. Does it have a Blue zone? Sure, but thats not really the point of the game. The best resources are in the danger areas. It's designed to ween you into the real game and not throw you into the cold deep water with no warning.
But make no doubt about it. Albion is an open world full loot PvP game. It's just done right, as a complete game and not just a feature. That is the difference. They thought about how to craft a whole game and didn't just say "Full Loot PvP now buy my game!".
For me though.. it was tainted at the start with P2W features. I dipped my toes into it at some point. Had a bit of fun but wasn't really in the mood for the red/black zones and dungeons but I can respect it for what it is. And it's undoubtedly a successful Open world PvP game with full looting.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Of course you don't have this with Realm V Realm, the best way to make a MMORPG, no open world PvP, it is all in contested zones. No full looting but with significant advantages for your side as opposed to individual advantage.
They are the chorus of harpies that claim they want those features and the devs dumb enough to try and make a game for them
I feel like you're hand waving away a bunch of features you don't like by tucking them under this criticism. The criticism is valid, but I don't think it is applicable to all things.
By way of comparison:
Open world games with full loot usually get a very vocal fan club up front but it doesn't take long before the reality of getting dry looted every 15 minutes sinks in and people generally don't hang around. Some people do like this, but despite the uproar it will only ever be a small minority. This is an excellent of example of the screaming fanbois being toxic - and they should be ignored.
However, I don't think including things like "items can be dropped on the ground" or "house keys" or that sort of thing can be immediately dismissed. I don't generally see people screaming for those kinds of things but some of us desire them. Also, unlike full loot PvP things like traps on chests, etc, haven't been exhaustively attempted like the open world full loot thing.
I'm with you in that I also tire of people complaining on the Fractured discord about not being able to kill people in the PvE areas. The mindset that grows angry at someone having fun somewhere else just boggles me. I'd like to see more developers tell people to shut up and leave - followed by a ban - because you don't want these people in any game.
Lets have a friendly chat for a moment
The dropping loot thing. Keep in mind my only contention to that idea is the mechanics involved in being able to make that happen and not cause a cluster fuck of a lag problem.
If the company can pull this off, great, it's mainly a non-issue as far as feature goes, but again, what it would take to put this in and make it work well, or at least the way players remember fondly or imagine it should work, and how they end up being able to make it work, could be the difference between eating cake and fucking a pie
As for the key thing. You know what, that would need to fit the game environment, and truth be told, I could not see that feature existing outside a full loot open world PvP game. It might add some next level fun dynamic within a full loot Open World PvP Game, same as being able to steal from other players, and many of the other, griefing roleplay mechanics that were common among UO and MUD's of the late 90's.
But, that kind of mechanic, I sincerely don't think it would survive long, (before it was removed or changed to the point to invalidate it) in anything but an Open World Full Loot PvP Game.
To be honest, that kind of happy fuck around shit might be the exact kind of asshole troll candy that these FLOW-PvP Games need to build that epic next level game of tactics, and really hook their players in.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
And you keep on lying about there not existing any successful games in this genre as well even though people keep telling you games that are successful. You are textbook propaganda troll who hates this genre and anyone can see that unless they are also a carebear.
Feel free to provide the names of widely successful full loot/open world/vertical progression (1) games that have been a roaring market success.
You can call me a troll. Fine. Name the game. You can call me a liar. Fine. Name the game. You can call me a propaganda. Fine. Name the game.
Flail your arms, accuse me of lying, throw around the term 'carebear' all you like.
Name the successful game that meets the criteria.
I'm still waiting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES 1: Full Loot: To the victor goes all the inventory, armor, and weapons. 2: Open world: No zones with varying PvP rulesets (with exception of safety in cities) 3: Vertical Progression: Significant power difference between noobs and geared vets.
But you already know the answer, you just pretend not to and if I answer you then you will just ignore it and round and round we go circle logic that never ends because you're just here to spread your carebear propaganda.
And you also ignored everything else I've said in that reply.
I mean really you are just ignoring everyhting all the time if it defeats your propaganda.
It doesnt matter what I say, you will just ignore it, even when I tell you exactly how they failed because of technical problems then you just say "oh so blame it on devs but its really because of the genre doesnt work" even when i've given a factual explanation of how it factually was because of technical problems, as a fucking fact... a fact is... well just look it up but i think you will just ignore what a fact is and continue your circle logic ignoring facts and just keep lying and spreading your carebear propaganda. That's also why I don't care about trying to convince you because I think you probably know I'm right already but you just won't give up your hate propaganda against this genre.
yellingcrabgrass said: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if that's all you think these games are about. You're simply talking about a genre of games you don't really know anything about. It's like someone who has zero interest/experience/knowledge about combat sports would go say that all they care about is to look scary but a someone who has a gun is really much scarier. It just don't make much sense.
I played Ultima Online back in the day. I played Shadowbane back in the day. I'm in Fractured Online now.
I'm way okay with PvP even though, due to the reflexes of a potted plant, I lose a majority of the time.
And yes, Trammel ruined UO but it was a knee-jerk response to a terribly broken system.
Numerous attempts to give back the player base the golden age of PKs have struggled or outright failed. It isn't the 'carebears' that are the problem when a game is advertised as hardcore PvP and nobody shows up. It just isn't fun for most.
But yeah, live in your dreamworld where it is other people ruining the game.
I love how much original Ultima Online is romanticized and how much Tranmel is hated.
Original UO was a giant failure. Around 70% of new players were quitting within days because of getting ganked.
It was so bad that EA was very close to shutting UO down.
Trammel was the hail Mary to save UO and it worked.
Even back in the earliest days of MMOs the majority rejected hardcore PvP.
But you already know the answer, you just pretend not to and if I answer you then you will just ignore it and round and round we go circle logic that never ends because you're just here to spread your carebear propaganda.
Oh fucking spare us.. and drop a name of a game already!
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
yellingcrabgrass said: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if that's all you think these games are about. You're simply talking about a genre of games you don't really know anything about. It's like someone who has zero interest/experience/knowledge about combat sports would go say that all they care about is to look scary but a someone who has a gun is really much scarier. It just don't make much sense.
I played Ultima Online back in the day. I played Shadowbane back in the day. I'm in Fractured Online now.
I'm way okay with PvP even though, due to the reflexes of a potted plant, I lose a majority of the time.
And yes, Trammel ruined UO but it was a knee-jerk response to a terribly broken system.
Numerous attempts to give back the player base the golden age of PKs have struggled or outright failed. It isn't the 'carebears' that are the problem when a game is advertised as hardcore PvP and nobody shows up. It just isn't fun for most.
But yeah, live in your dreamworld where it is other people ruining the game.
I love how much original Ultima Online is romanticized and how much Tranmel is hated.
Original UO was a giant failure. Around 70% of new players were quitting within days because of getting ganked.
It was so bad that EA was very close to shutting UO down.
Trammel was the hail Mary to save UO and it worked.
Even back in the earliest days of MMOs the majority rejected hardcore PvP.
Trammel is hated because it was a stupid way to fix the problem. Everyone agrees there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
UO gets romanticized because even in '98 it was a better game than 99% of the trash that comes out today - regardless of the PvP.
They are the chorus of harpies that claim they want those features and the devs dumb enough to try and make a game for them
I feel like you're hand waving away a bunch of features you don't like by tucking them under this criticism. The criticism is valid, but I don't think it is applicable to all things.
By way of comparison:
Open world games with full loot usually get a very vocal fan club up front but it doesn't take long before the reality of getting dry looted every 15 minutes sinks in and people generally don't hang around. Some people do like this, but despite the uproar it will only ever be a small minority. This is an excellent of example of the screaming fanbois being toxic - and they should be ignored.
However, I don't think including things like "items can be dropped on the ground" or "house keys" or that sort of thing can be immediately dismissed. I don't generally see people screaming for those kinds of things but some of us desire them. Also, unlike full loot PvP things like traps on chests, etc, haven't been exhaustively attempted like the open world full loot thing.
I'm with you in that I also tire of people complaining on the Fractured discord about not being able to kill people in the PvE areas. The mindset that grows angry at someone having fun somewhere else just boggles me. I'd like to see more developers tell people to shut up and leave - followed by a ban - because you don't want these people in any game.
Lets have a friendly chat for a moment
The dropping loot thing. Keep in mind my only contention to that idea is the mechanics involved in being able to make that happen and not cause a cluster fuck of a lag problem.
You'll just ignore everything I type you carebear propaganda spewing hate-monger.
Oh wait.... you're not the other guy.
I think for me whether it is the key for my house, or the dropping loot thing, that the specifics aren't terribly important. In fact, those could be stand-ins or examples of what I enjoy in a game.
UO kind of started more along the lines of a simulation so it was natural that the developers would have stuff fall to the ground or that a house would have a key. They started out with limited spawns, again, because the design ethos was simulation as opposed to game like FFXIV where the goal is Fashion Barbie Online.
I think the simulation mindset causes cool things to happen and it seems to me that other games don't simulate reality as much as simulate games.
So of course you drop everything when you die, and of course someone can break into your house, and some of that brought grief for sure, but now games don't even attempt to be anything real.
Instanced housing Not dropping gear Swords the size of surf boards Quest markers
Instead of simulations we get icons on a screen, sort of place holders for great systems instead of great systems. Most games are caricatures of other games - they look like games, such as FFXIV, but are really nothing more complicated than Bejeweled.
When is the last time a big MMORPG required you to look at the landscape to get a clue as how to defeat the boss? It's all meaningless set pieces anymore.
yellingcrabgrass said: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if that's all you think these games are about. You're simply talking about a genre of games you don't really know anything about. It's like someone who has zero interest/experience/knowledge about combat sports would go say that all they care about is to look scary but a someone who has a gun is really much scarier. It just don't make much sense.
I played Ultima Online back in the day. I played Shadowbane back in the day. I'm in Fractured Online now.
I'm way okay with PvP even though, due to the reflexes of a potted plant, I lose a majority of the time.
And yes, Trammel ruined UO but it was a knee-jerk response to a terribly broken system.
Numerous attempts to give back the player base the golden age of PKs have struggled or outright failed. It isn't the 'carebears' that are the problem when a game is advertised as hardcore PvP and nobody shows up. It just isn't fun for most.
But yeah, live in your dreamworld where it is other people ruining the game.
I love how much original Ultima Online is romanticized and how much Tranmel is hated.
Original UO was a giant failure. Around 70% of new players were quitting within days because of getting ganked.
It was so bad that EA was very close to shutting UO down.
Trammel was the hail Mary to save UO and it worked.
Even back in the earliest days of MMOs the majority rejected hardcore PvP.
Trammel is hated because it was a stupid way to fix the problem. Everyone agrees there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
UO gets romanticized because even in '98 it was a better game than 99% of the trash that comes out today - regardless of the PvP.
The only reason UO is still around today is Trammel.
Trammel is hated because the hardcore PvP parasites couldnt gank the new players anymore, which was the sole source of fun those sociopaths could muster in their sad lives.
yellingcrabgrass said: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if that's all you think these games are about. You're simply talking about a genre of games you don't really know anything about. It's like someone who has zero interest/experience/knowledge about combat sports would go say that all they care about is to look scary but a someone who has a gun is really much scarier. It just don't make much sense.
I played Ultima Online back in the day. I played Shadowbane back in the day. I'm in Fractured Online now.
I'm way okay with PvP even though, due to the reflexes of a potted plant, I lose a majority of the time.
And yes, Trammel ruined UO but it was a knee-jerk response to a terribly broken system.
Numerous attempts to give back the player base the golden age of PKs have struggled or outright failed. It isn't the 'carebears' that are the problem when a game is advertised as hardcore PvP and nobody shows up. It just isn't fun for most.
But yeah, live in your dreamworld where it is other people ruining the game.
I love how much original Ultima Online is romanticized and how much Tranmel is hated.
Original UO was a giant failure. Around 70% of new players were quitting within days because of getting ganked.
It was so bad that EA was very close to shutting UO down.
Trammel was the hail Mary to save UO and it worked.
Even back in the earliest days of MMOs the majority rejected hardcore PvP.
Trammel is hated because it was a stupid way to fix the problem. Everyone agrees there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
UO gets romanticized because even in '98 it was a better game than 99% of the trash that comes out today - regardless of the PvP.
The only reason UO is still around today is Trammel.
Trammel is hated because the hardcore PvP parasites couldnt gank the new players anymore, which was the sole source of fun those sociopaths could muster in their sad lives.
I was never a PK but left soon after Trammel hit.
Trammel is hated because instead of creating PvP opportunity they simply created PvE/PvP servers and it was a lame, lazy response.
Yes, there were sociopaths in those days, and we even have one in this thread. These are the guys that want UO '98 - they've the next brilliant idea for a game that will rule the world - something great that hundreds of full time game developers haven't been able to figure out - truth is, they cannot just admit they're sick in the head and want to gank noobs 24/7.
yellingcrabgrass said: you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if that's all you think these games are about. You're simply talking about a genre of games you don't really know anything about. It's like someone who has zero interest/experience/knowledge about combat sports would go say that all they care about is to look scary but a someone who has a gun is really much scarier. It just don't make much sense.
I played Ultima Online back in the day. I played Shadowbane back in the day. I'm in Fractured Online now.
I'm way okay with PvP even though, due to the reflexes of a potted plant, I lose a majority of the time.
And yes, Trammel ruined UO but it was a knee-jerk response to a terribly broken system.
Numerous attempts to give back the player base the golden age of PKs have struggled or outright failed. It isn't the 'carebears' that are the problem when a game is advertised as hardcore PvP and nobody shows up. It just isn't fun for most.
But yeah, live in your dreamworld where it is other people ruining the game.
I love how much original Ultima Online is romanticized and how much Tranmel is hated.
Original UO was a giant failure. Around 70% of new players were quitting within days because of getting ganked.
It was so bad that EA was very close to shutting UO down.
Trammel was the hail Mary to save UO and it worked.
Even back in the earliest days of MMOs the majority rejected hardcore PvP.
Trammel is hated because it was a stupid way to fix the problem. Everyone agrees there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
UO gets romanticized because even in '98 it was a better game than 99% of the trash that comes out today - regardless of the PvP.
The only reason UO is still around today is Trammel.
Trammel is hated because the hardcore PvP parasites couldnt gank the new players anymore, which was the sole source of fun those sociopaths could muster in their sad lives.
I was never a PK but left soon after Trammel hit.
Trammel is hated because instead of creating PvP opportunity they simply created PvE/PvP servers and it was a lame, lazy response.
Yes, there were sociopaths in those days, and we even have one in this thread. These are the guys that want UO '98 - they've the next brilliant idea for a game that will rule the world - something great that hundreds of full time game developers haven't been able to figure out - truth is, they cannot just admit they're sick in the head and want to gank noobs 24/7.
Yet by some accounts that I've read UO's sub numbers went up for quite awhile after Trammels release, so it couldn't have been all that disliked.
Here's a good account by the person responsible for Trammel
*Yes, I'm the person who is responsible for bringing you Trammel and the dilution the original UO.*
*And I regret some (but not all) of the outcome. My charter as the VP of Online at Origin Systems (and Executive Producer of UO), was to grow the game. The unforgiving play environment that made UO so intense was clearly driving away between 70+% of all the new players that tried the game within 60 days. The changes we came up with to address this problem were a compromise, mostly driven by fiscal, technological and time reasons.*
*The good: After the change which broke the game space into PvP and PvE worlds, the player base and income nearly doubled (we went from 125k to 245k subs). So from a fiscal responsibility standpoint it was a totally winning move.*
*The bad: Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised. They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game. The real bad though was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished. This was the major unintended consequence.*
*Part of the context during that time was that UO2 was under development, and the plan that was being pushed on us was to shut down UO when UO2 launched (even though it was a completely different game). In fact, my second week at Origin I was asked for a shutdown plan for the game. (My answer: if you are serious I'm quitting today, because some of the players are going to kill (IRL) the people responsible for such a decision. They really didn't understand the emotional attachment UO players had for the game). This continued to be something talked about though continuously, but less after we grew the game. Remember that EA at that time was a packaged game company and they culturally only understood launching new products, not running live ones. Our Live team needed to keep UO vibrant and growing to offset those forces, so we were continuously scrambling for how to do that. I'm proud that UO survives to this day based partially on the momentum the team (and our loyal customers) created.*
*I also learned from my UO experience that it's really hard to change a brand. Inherent in the UO brand was the fact it was a gritty, hard core world of danger. We were not successful in bringing back the (literally)100's of thousands of players who had quit due to the unbridled PvP in the world (\~5% of former customers came back to try the new UO, but very few of them stayed). We discovered that people didn't just quit UO, they divorced it in a very emotional way. But we did keep more of the new players that came in by a large margin, significantly more than than the PvP players we lost.*
*If I had the chance to do it again, (and we had different fiscal and time constraints), we would have done something more like keeping the current current worlds with the original ruleset (like we later did with the Seige Perilous shard, which was too late in my view), and make new shards with a more PvE ruleset.*
*One of the benefits of experience is the mistakes you've made along the way, and the pattern matching to avoid old mistakes. Of course this means that you get to make new and even more spectacular (but different) mistakes in the present!* *?*
*I hope this gives you more insight into what happened the UO that you (and I) loved.*
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Don't forget that there are so incredibly many mmorpg that failed because they tried to target the carebears as their audience. They tried making wow clones and making everything as consensual and safe as they can, theme park mmorpgs. Incredibly many stupid dev studios have tried this and wasted so much time and money down the drain.
Their problem is that when they try to target the biggest demographic, they will have so many competitors that it's almost impossible to succeed. That's where the statistic comes from about 99% of games fail because they try to compete against games like WoW.
Despite the failure of many MMORPGs with a PvE focus the successes of such far outnumber those successful games with a strong PvP element.
What you prefer is not a widely shared preference. Accordingly, a small number of games serve that market, notably EVE Online and Albion Online.
There are also some non-commercial options one can seek out but I'll leave that to intrepid search explorers to find.
I for one do not consider this outcome from the above as "Bad.", I would have called it "Better."
The bad: Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised. They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game. The real bad though was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished. This was the major unintended consequence.*
The "Best" option would have been to lock all of those psychopaths up in real life.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yet by some accounts that I've read UO's sub numbers went up for quite awhile after Trammels release, so it couldn't have been all that disliked.
Here's a good account by the person responsible for Trammel
*Yes, I'm the person who is responsible for bringing you Trammel and the dilution the original UO.*
Good post.
I didn't care for the split (loved it at first), but as the author admits it was a dilution of the original UO. Once I got past the original euphoria of having the entire game world opened, I soon realized the soul had left the body.
The possibility of UO2 makes it obvious why they went with the lazy approach. That is good information.
Yet another nail in the coffin of the whole "full loot, open world" is a money maker chestnut.
Don't forget that there are so incredibly many mmorpg that failed because they tried to target the carebears as their audience. They tried making wow clones and making everything as consensual and safe as they can, theme park mmorpgs. Incredibly many stupid dev studios have tried this and wasted so much time and money down the drain.
Their problem is that when they try to target the biggest demographic, they will have so many competitors that it's almost impossible to succeed. That's where the statistic comes from about 99% of games fail because they try to compete against games like WoW.
Despite the failure of many MMORPGs with a PvE focus the successes of such far outnumber those successful games with a strong PvP element.
What you prefer is not a widely shared preference. Accordingly, a small number of games serve that market, notably EVE Online and Albion Online.
There are also some non-commercial options one can seek out but I'll leave that to intrepid search explorers to find.
You may ask for proof of his assertions if you enjoy being called names and his reflexive vomiting of 'carebear' all over the conversation.
You'll just ignore everything I type you carebear propaganda spewing hate-monger.
Oh wait.... you're not the other guy.
I think for me whether it is the key for my house, or the dropping loot thing, that the specifics aren't terribly important. In fact, those could be stand-ins or examples of what I enjoy in a game.
UO kind of started more along the lines of a simulation so it was natural that the developers would have stuff fall to the ground or that a house would have a key. They started out with limited spawns, again, because the design ethos was simulation as opposed to game like FFXIV where the goal is Fashion Barbie Online.
I think the simulation mindset causes cool things to happen and it seems to me that other games don't simulate reality as much as simulate games.
So of course you drop everything when you die, and of course someone can break into your house, and some of that brought grief for sure, but now games don't even attempt to be anything real.
Instanced housing Not dropping gear Swords the size of surf boards Quest markers
Instead of simulations we get icons on a screen, sort of place holders for great systems instead of great systems. Most games are caricatures of other games - they look like games, such as FFXIV, but are really nothing more complicated than Bejeweled.
When is the last time a big MMORPG required you to look at the landscape to get a clue as how to defeat the boss? It's all meaningless set pieces anymore.
That’s the thing, there are games that try to have more simulation and games that just want to be anything from “games” to “reward dispensers.
most recent games seem to be the latter. I prefer more simulation. Hate the latter.
Also in fairness to people wanting looting and open world pvp, while they are a minority, that type of game has a place as long as it’s made well. Another question would be “name an open pvp/looting game that was released in a polished state with all its features?”
Other than Albion (pointed out by Slapshot) there’s EVE. I suspect that game benefits from being unique and having years of development.
I’ve tried games like Darkfall and Mortal Online (1 & 2) and they felt wonky. These games are made by fan developers lacking experience and/or money.
I’ve played many more pve games that had more polish even though they weren’t great games.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Also in fairness to people wanting looting and open world pvp, while they are a minority, that type of game has a place as long as it’s made well.
I don't know why a developer would risk trying an open world, full loot, PvP game when (as others pointed out) DaoC's realm approach was such a nice way to handle it. For my part, I've no interest in open world/full loot PvP because it attracts the worst element of the community.
Now in Fractured, there were quite a few reds at first (the population has cratered) but one thing I noticed is the Sheriff system ended up causing many reds to leave or change alignment. Many people who want open world full loot PvP cannot handle it once a system is in place that brings the fight to them in a big way.
I suspect you could have 100,000 full loot wannabes, but once the 5% of that number mastered the game they'd drive off the other 95%. That is why people need to be honest with what they want - they pose and pretend they want PvP when many of them just want to abuse new players.
Conversely, even though being red can be tough in FO, there are reds that are still there and enjoying it.... because they actually like PvP and playing the bad guy.
Comments
If they are willing to spend money and you are not, it's your own damn fault the devs are making a product for them, and not you
Want that to change, open your wallet and spend money, if you think voting with your wallet means not spending money, you have been played my brother, voting with your wallet means spending money on what you want
Think of your money like breadcrumbs. The pidgins in the times square No matter how little or much someone tosses, as long as they are tossing some crumbs the pigeons will follow, but if you are not tossing anything, the pigeons will show no interest in you.
The problem is your proposed full loot open world vertical progression idea has had no real success. You can claim it is because nobody does it right - implying you know so much more than 100s of game developers - the full loot pvp crowd, the hubris tracks.
Here's the thing, you're not wrong for having a game preference.
There is nothing wrong with wanting what you want in a game - but nobody has pulled it off to great market success. They've all been niche games (I don't know if Eve Online qualifies, Kyleran would have to speak to that) - but that's okay.
The objection isn't to your preference, the objection is to the claims that there are hoards of people out there wanting that style of game.
The demographic is very small as to be inconsequential.
If you doubt that consider Fractured Online as a tiny example. There is inventory looting in that game on 1/2 the map - and the bad guys cannot get my armor/weapon (my biggest investment); however, even with huge limitations like this 3/4 of my guild left because they hated having their inventory looted. They would lose 20 minutes of farming and simply leave.
People hate having their things taken from them - period.
Games that feature unpleasant experiences just aren't going to be big.
Feel free to list a single game that was a market success that featured open world PvP/Full loot/vertical progression that didn't immediately begin to back pedal within a year of release.
I'm waiting.
You can call me a troll. Fine. Name the game.
You can call me a liar. Fine. Name the game.
You can call me a propaganda. Fine. Name the game.
Flail your arms, accuse me of lying, throw around the term 'carebear' all you like.
Name the successful game that meets the criteria.
I'm still waiting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
1: Full Loot: To the victor goes all the inventory, armor, and weapons.
2: Open world: No zones with varying PvP rulesets (with exception of safety in cities)
3: Vertical Progression: Significant power difference between noobs and geared vets.
^--- based on this thread, this seems to be the coup de grâce in some people's estimate.
But make no doubt about it. Albion is an open world full loot PvP game. It's just done right, as a complete game and not just a feature. That is the difference. They thought about how to craft a whole game and didn't just say "Full Loot PvP now buy my game!".
For me though.. it was tainted at the start with P2W features. I dipped my toes into it at some point. Had a bit of fun but wasn't really in the mood for the red/black zones and dungeons but I can respect it for what it is. And it's undoubtedly a successful Open world PvP game with full looting.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Am I going to call that social PvP, yes I am!
The dropping loot thing. Keep in mind my only contention to that idea is the mechanics involved in being able to make that happen and not cause a cluster fuck of a lag problem.
If the company can pull this off, great, it's mainly a non-issue as far as feature goes, but again, what it would take to put this in and make it work well, or at least the way players remember fondly or imagine it should work, and how they end up being able to make it work, could be the difference between eating cake and fucking a pie
As for the key thing. You know what, that would need to fit the game environment, and truth be told, I could not see that feature existing outside a full loot open world PvP game. It might add some next level fun dynamic within a full loot Open World PvP Game, same as being able to steal from other players, and many of the other, griefing roleplay mechanics that were common among UO and MUD's of the late 90's.
But, that kind of mechanic, I sincerely don't think it would survive long, (before it was removed or changed to the point to invalidate it) in anything but an Open World Full Loot PvP Game.
To be honest, that kind of happy fuck around shit might be the exact kind of asshole troll candy that these FLOW-PvP Games need to build that epic next level game of tactics, and really hook their players in.
Everyone agrees there was a problem that needed to be fixed.
UO gets romanticized because even in '98 it was a better game than 99% of the trash that comes out today - regardless of the PvP.
Oh wait.... you're not the other guy.
I think for me whether it is the key for my house, or the dropping loot thing, that the specifics aren't terribly important. In fact, those could be stand-ins or examples of what I enjoy in a game.
UO kind of started more along the lines of a simulation so it was natural that the developers would have stuff fall to the ground or that a house would have a key. They started out with limited spawns, again, because the design ethos was simulation as opposed to game like FFXIV where the goal is Fashion Barbie Online.
I think the simulation mindset causes cool things to happen and it seems to me that other games don't simulate reality as much as simulate games.
So of course you drop everything when you die, and of course someone can break into your house, and some of that brought grief for sure, but now games don't even attempt to be anything real.
Instanced housing
Not dropping gear
Swords the size of surf boards
Quest markers
Instead of simulations we get icons on a screen, sort of place holders for great systems instead of great systems. Most games are caricatures of other games - they look like games, such as FFXIV, but are really nothing more complicated than Bejeweled.
When is the last time a big MMORPG required you to look at the landscape to get a clue as how to defeat the boss? It's all meaningless set pieces anymore.
Trammel is hated because instead of creating PvP opportunity they simply created PvE/PvP servers and it was a lame, lazy response.
Yes, there were sociopaths in those days, and we even have one in this thread. These are the guys that want UO '98 - they've the next brilliant idea for a game that will rule the world - something great that hundreds of full time game developers haven't been able to figure out - truth is, they cannot just admit they're sick in the head and want to gank noobs 24/7.
Here's a good account by the person responsible for Trammel
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultimaonline/s/MoKcLlkOOY
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Despite the failure of many MMORPGs with a PvE focus the successes of such far outnumber those successful games with a strong PvP element.
What you prefer is not a widely shared preference. Accordingly, a small number of games serve that market, notably EVE Online and Albion Online.
There are also some non-commercial options one can seek out but I'll leave that to intrepid search explorers to find.
The bad: Without the "sheep to shear" the hard core PvP'ers were disenfranchised. They didn't like preying on each other (hard targets versus soft targets), and they became a smaller minority in the overall game. The real bad though was that the intensity and "realness" of the game for all players was diminished. This was the major unintended consequence.*
The "Best" option would have been to lock all of those psychopaths up in real life.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I didn't care for the split (loved it at first), but as the author admits it was a dilution of the original UO. Once I got past the original euphoria of having the entire game world opened, I soon realized the soul had left the body.
The possibility of UO2 makes it obvious why they went with the lazy approach. That is good information.
Yet another nail in the coffin of the whole "full loot, open world" is a money maker chestnut.
most recent games seem to be the latter. I prefer more simulation. Hate the latter.
Also in fairness to people wanting looting and open world pvp, while they are a minority, that type of game has a place as long as it’s made well. Another question would be “name an open pvp/looting game that was released in a polished state with all its features?”
Other than Albion (pointed out by Slapshot) there’s EVE. I suspect that game benefits from being unique and having years of development.
I’ve tried games like Darkfall and Mortal Online (1 & 2) and they felt wonky. These games are made by fan developers lacking experience and/or money.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Now in Fractured, there were quite a few reds at first (the population has cratered) but one thing I noticed is the Sheriff system ended up causing many reds to leave or change alignment. Many people who want open world full loot PvP cannot handle it once a system is in place that brings the fight to them in a big way.
I suspect you could have 100,000 full loot wannabes, but once the 5% of that number mastered the game they'd drive off the other 95%. That is why people need to be honest with what they want - they pose and pretend they want PvP when many of them just want to abuse new players.
Conversely, even though being red can be tough in FO, there are reds that are still there and enjoying it.... because they actually like PvP and playing the bad guy.