Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Could DF:UW be a UO replacement MMO?

24

Comments

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,469Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    I'll just answer the OP title question:

    Not even remotely close.

     I find it kind of offensive when people create thread titles like this.  Some will see it and believe it to be true resulting in DFUW getting extra customers.  It's really simply using UO to market a game that should be able to find a market without such trickery.

  • CecropiaCecropia The Great White North, ONPosts: 3,471Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    I'll just answer the OP title question:

    Not even remotely close.

     I find it kind of offensive when people create thread titles like this.  Some will see it and believe it to be true resulting in DFUW getting extra customers.  It's really simply using UO to market a game that should be able to find a market without such trickery.

    Perhaps this trickery you speak of will offset the ridiculous little group of regulars who are campaigning day after day to "save" people from giving the game a go.

     

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,936Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    I'll just answer the OP title question: Not even remotely close.

     I find it kind of offensive when people create thread titles like this.  Some will see it and believe it to be true resulting in DFUW getting extra customers.  It's really simply using UO to market a game that should be able to find a market without such trickery.

     

    Pretty much this ^^. The big difference is that UO was made by people that know what the eff they are doing and care/cared enough to put out a good product and ran the game well (arguably) over time. And without lying about features that will be in the game (and then aren't) and playing games with "beta" status (and LOL at "debug mode") and release dates. If one looks at DF1 as an example, AV has not demonstrated the ability to do any of those things. So, no... DFUO will be left to languish as DF1 was: after a bit only the most dedicated fans will stick around long after everyone else (who are not blindly loyal) will have moved on.
  • HotjazzHotjazz BalsfjordPosts: 742Member
    Originally posted by Mageick

    I am more of an adventurer than a pvper, while I lke to pvp I see myself having alot of fun leveling, crafing, and exploring( the world seems HUGE! )the danger will make it  more fun imo. Is there room for a player like me in this game or is it strictly a pvp experiene?

    It is nothing like UO except full-loot and the feeling of danger.

     

    Darkfall is more dangerous than UO. You don`t have a hide skill or a fast recall spell in Darkfall, and your only chance is to hide behind something, run or fight. It also doesn`t have a health bar you can target, so you`ll have to aim. Your safety is in numbers or uber skill. You either live in safezones or spots like buccs den. UO was more sandbox, but darkfall got more meaningfull PVP. We got ship battles, sieges, politics, alliances in much larger scale than UO. I played UO from 1998-2004 and loved that game. Darkfall is the only game that comes close to the adrenaline rush you had in UO.

     

    And NO, Trammel was not UO and never will be. Trammel was a freak hello kitty-wow clone.

     

    The GUI in Darkfall is horrible, and I mean horrible. The GUI in Darkfall is so bad, that if you can get through that part, you don`t care if someone kills you. Think about win 95 with an endless row of folders, tiny icons grown up men need to put on glasses to see and some weird wheels you need bouth mouse buttons to use. Then you got the GUI in Darkfall. The GUI is so bad I had to force myself to play, and I liked the game.

  • LongLivePvPLongLivePvP LA, CAPosts: 102Member
    Wished Elder Scrolls Online would be more like Darkfall

    Playing: Darkfall Unholy Wars & ArcheAge(Alpha)
    Backed: Shards Online, Camelot Unchained
    Loved: Vanilla WoW,UO,Shadowbane,EQ,DAoC,Asheron's Call(Darktide)

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by LongLivePvP
    Wished Elder Scrolls Online would be more like Darkfall

    If it was, then it wouldn't be anything like any of the elder scrolls games.

  • GreymoorGreymoor ManchesterPosts: 801Member
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by LongLivePvP
    Wished Elder Scrolls Online would be more like Darkfall

    If it was, then it wouldn't be anything like any of the elder scrolls games.

    Would be closer than the themepark they're planning :s

  • MegaD61MegaD61 Manhattan, KSPosts: 59Member
    Originally posted by Greymoor
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by LongLivePvP
    Wished Elder Scrolls Online would be more like Darkfall

    If it was, then it wouldn't be anything like any of the elder scrolls games.

    Would be closer than the themepark they're planning :s

    This is true.  I have clannies that have played in beta and said its just gunna be another effing wow clone pretty much.  DFUW is the ONLY good MMO out there right now or in the near future IMO.  I'm in it having a blast 13K Skrimisher.

  • RealbigdealRealbigdeal Vimont, QCPosts: 1,625Member

    It's nothing like UO because DF UW is not a sandbox. It's an open world pvp with a great economic, crafting and conquest system.

    A lawless system is missing, but i'm sure it will be there. The truth is, DF UW is still in beta and what we have is probably 25% of the full game.(not even kidding). With this bit, i still think DF UW is the best mmo ever if you don't count the great ones who don't exist anymore like DF online. 

    C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Toronto, ONPosts: 90Member
    Originally posted by Sharess
    Originally posted by Betaguy
    Originally posted by Mageick
    Trammel was bad for UO imo. I played before all that was implemented. pvpers make pve fun.

     Spoken like a griefer

    Not spoken like a griefer. I was a PK and an ANTI in those days. Loved the possibility/reaction of a group of 6 PKS swarming Deceit, fighting in the Lich Lord rooms or the Terathan kill site/dungeons for the queens/avengers/warriors (so many items to be gained/lost for killing people and or waiting for a pk to come by/cut a path and kill the flagged looters.

    I agree that Trammel was a bad thing for Ultima Online.  PvP was a part of what made the game so good.  Sure, there were times now and again where you'd get griefers but this wasn't the case most of the time, at least in my experience.  I too had both good and evil characters but mostly played anti-pk because there were always pks around to battle with.  My guild would enter dungeon hot spots and protect other blues from pk attacks while they hunted.  There was lots of good battles doing this and it was lots of fun.  Trammel seperated the game's population too much and then factions removed PvP from everywhere but towns.  That's when I quit playing. 

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Toronto, ONPosts: 90Member
    Originally posted by danwest58
    Originally posted by Mageick
    Trammel was bad for UO imo. I played before all that was implemented. pvpers make pve fun.

    Spoken like a true person without logical reasoning skills.  If you had any you would know that Pre-trammel UO had between 100K and 125K subscriptions.  Within the year of the release of trammel UO subscriptions had doubled to 250K.  So o yes Trammel really bad for UO; but it doubled the profit from UO and allowed the developers to make more content faster.  REALLY bad for UO,  /rollseyes

    BTW I played UO since 1998, for the 2 years I was on and off because of the grieving even though I had some good PVP friends.  I became a stable player after tram came out and played until SWG released.  The only thing Trammel was back for was players who think grieving players like crafters is a good thing.  A Mule stands no change vs a Mage with GM Magery, Meditation, and Eval intel, however we will not talk about people like you because you think I am picking on your Elite skills.

    Trammel was not the reason more players were joining.  MMO gaming in general was getting more popular at this time.  I didn't even own a computer myself untill a friend introduced me to UO.  I was instantly addicted and went and bought my first PC   =)  .

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix
    Originally posted by danwest58
    Originally posted by Mageick
    Trammel was bad for UO imo. I played before all that was implemented. pvpers make pve fun.

    Spoken like a true person without logical reasoning skills.  If you had any you would know that Pre-trammel UO had between 100K and 125K subscriptions.  Within the year of the release of trammel UO subscriptions had doubled to 250K.  So o yes Trammel really bad for UO; but it doubled the profit from UO and allowed the developers to make more content faster.  REALLY bad for UO,  /rollseyes

    BTW I played UO since 1998, for the 2 years I was on and off because of the grieving even though I had some good PVP friends.  I became a stable player after tram came out and played until SWG released.  The only thing Trammel was back for was players who think grieving players like crafters is a good thing.  A Mule stands no change vs a Mage with GM Magery, Meditation, and Eval intel, however we will not talk about people like you because you think I am picking on your Elite skills.

    Trammel was not the reason more players were joining.  MMO gaming in general was getting more popular at this time.  I didn't even own a computer myself untill a friend introduced me to UO.  I was instantly addicted and went and bought my first PC   =)  .

    This is wrong. The UO developers themself (Raph Koster notably) admitted they were bleeding customers and they patched in Trammel to get them back.

    Trammel gave people THE CHOICE. You could still play 100% in Felucca if you wanted to. The only thing that pissed off the griefer PKs is that they no longer had harmless victims like the poor crafter bringing his ore to town, but they had to fight other skilled PKs instead.

    Choice is always good. And choice saved UO and made it so that the game, despite its aged graphics, still exists nowadays.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • StarIStarI waka wakaPosts: 924Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

     

    This is wrong. The UO developers themself (Raph Koster notably) admitted they were bleeding customers and they patched in Trammel to get them back.

    Trammel gave people THE CHOICE. You could still play 100% in Felucca if you wanted to. The only thing that pissed off the griefer PKs is that they no longer had harmless victims like the poor crafter bringing his ore to town, but they had to fight other skilled PKs instead.

    Choice is always good. And choice saved UO and made it so that the game, despite its aged graphics, still exists nowadays.

     

    Yup. CHOICE is the key.

     

    But UO is not the best example anymore, EvE is a better one.

  • lickm3lickm3 PilsenPosts: 150Member


    Originally posted by Realbigdeal
    i still think DF UW is the best mmo ever if you don't count the great ones who don't exist anymore like DF online. 

    What about EvE Online hardcore sandbox ever made? Or UO which is 15years old and still has better combat system than shity copy/paste TERA online combat in your best mmo dfuw ?

    “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”? -Albert Einstein

  • HodoHodo Raeford, NCPosts: 542Member
    UO, was better pre-Trammel.   It actually made the economy circulate instead of stagnate.   Players who werent PvPers stayed in groups, PvPers made friends and worked together to raid common PVE hunting areas.   Players who lost gear needed it replaced, bought it from crafters who rarely left the safety of towns.   It was a real economy, it worked.   This is why games like Mortal Online, DFUW, all fall short.    They are PVP first, crafting second, economy maybe.   Eve actually follows the original UO concept pretty well, with security zones.   You can be completely safe as a PvE player in the HIGH sec zones, not to say you wont be killed by the random PvPer, but its RARE, real rare.   But if you want the better stuff, you need to go out into the lower sec areas to get it.   Or pay someone to do it for you.  

    So much crap, so little quality.

  • Mors.MagneMors.Magne LondonPosts: 1,420Member
    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

     

    This is wrong. The UO developers themself (Raph Koster notably) admitted they were bleeding customers and they patched in Trammel to get them back.

    Trammel gave people THE CHOICE. You could still play 100% in Felucca if you wanted to. The only thing that pissed off the griefer PKs is that they no longer had harmless victims like the poor crafter bringing his ore to town, but they had to fight other skilled PKs instead.

    Choice is always good. And choice saved UO and made it so that the game, despite its aged graphics, still exists nowadays.

     

    Yup. CHOICE is the key.

     

    But UO is not the best example anymore, EvE is a better one.

    I've played EvE for years, but in my opinion it's a different beast to DFUW. 

    EvE is in space (and you have gates), but DFUW is on terra firma. Therefore, the 'feel' of these two games is rather different.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lickm3

     


    Originally posted by Realbigdeal
    i still think DF UW is the best mmo ever if you don't count the great ones who don't exist anymore like DF online. 

     

    What about EvE Online hardcore sandbox ever made? Or UO which is 15years old and still has better combat system than shity copy/paste TERA online combat in your best mmo dfuw ?

    I prefer pre-Age of Shadows (feb 2003) UO combat system that even though it is 16 years old still demands more PvP playerskill then Darkfall. Old UO could take 6 months to +1 year to skillfully handle with it's twitchbased and tactical spellsystem, some never got the hang of it even though they trained and trained and trained. Playing a dexer was kinda easy but  playing a mage skillfully was amazingly hard even though it was autotarget. Best magic system ever created.

    Tried DFUW abit and ended my subscription, UI is terrible even though i guess you can get used to it in the long run. And it is far from the sandbox game UO was, more like a online quake arena.

  • lickm3lickm3 PilsenPosts: 150Member


    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by lickm3   Originally posted by Realbigdeal i still think DF UW is the best mmo ever if you don't count the great ones who don't exist anymore like DF online. 
      What about EvE Online hardcore sandbox ever made? Or UO which is 15years old and still has better combat system than shity copy/paste TERA online combat in your best mmo dfuw ?
    I prefer pre-Age of Shadows (feb 2003) UO combat system that even though it is 16 years old still demands more PvP playerskill then Darkfall. Old UO could take 6 months to +1 year to skillfully handle with it's twitchbased and tactical spellsystem, some never got the hang of it even though they trained and trained and trained. Playing a dexer was kinda easy but  playing a mage skillfully was amazingly hard even though it was autotarget. Best magic system ever created.

    Tried DFUW abit and ended my subscription, UI is terrible even though i guess you can get used to it in the long run. And it is far from the sandbox game UO was, more like a online quake arena.


    I couldn't agree more.

    “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”? -Albert Einstein

  • StarIStarI waka wakaPosts: 924Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mors.Magne
    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

     

    This is wrong. The UO developers themself (Raph Koster notably) admitted they were bleeding customers and they patched in Trammel to get them back.

    Trammel gave people THE CHOICE. You could still play 100% in Felucca if you wanted to. The only thing that pissed off the griefer PKs is that they no longer had harmless victims like the poor crafter bringing his ore to town, but they had to fight other skilled PKs instead.

    Choice is always good. And choice saved UO and made it so that the game, despite its aged graphics, still exists nowadays.

     

    Yup. CHOICE is the key.

     

    But UO is not the best example anymore, EvE is a better one.

    I've played EvE for years, but in my opinion it's a different beast to DFUW. 

    EvE is in space (and you have gates), but DFUW is on terra firma. Therefore, the 'feel' of these two games is rather different.

     

    Obviously Darkfall would have to implement CHOICE in rather different way but it would still be possible I'm sure.

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Toronto, ONPosts: 90Member
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix
    Originally posted by danwest58
    Originally posted by Mageick
    Trammel was bad for UO imo. I played before all that was implemented. pvpers make pve fun.

    Spoken like a true person without logical reasoning skills.  If you had any you would know that Pre-trammel UO had between 100K and 125K subscriptions.  Within the year of the release of trammel UO subscriptions had doubled to 250K.  So o yes Trammel really bad for UO; but it doubled the profit from UO and allowed the developers to make more content faster.  REALLY bad for UO,  /rollseyes

    BTW I played UO since 1998, for the 2 years I was on and off because of the grieving even though I had some good PVP friends.  I became a stable player after tram came out and played until SWG released.  The only thing Trammel was back for was players who think grieving players like crafters is a good thing.  A Mule stands no change vs a Mage with GM Magery, Meditation, and Eval intel, however we will not talk about people like you because you think I am picking on your Elite skills.

    Trammel was not the reason more players were joining.  MMO gaming in general was getting more popular at this time.  I didn't even own a computer myself untill a friend introduced me to UO.  I was instantly addicted and went and bought my first PC   =)  .

    This is wrong. The UO developers themself (Raph Koster notably) admitted they were bleeding customers and they patched in Trammel to get them back.

    Trammel gave people THE CHOICE. You could still play 100% in Felucca if you wanted to. The only thing that pissed off the griefer PKs is that they no longer had harmless victims like the poor crafter bringing his ore to town, but they had to fight other skilled PKs instead.

    Choice is always good. And choice saved UO and made it so that the game, despite its aged graphics, still exists nowadays.

    I highly doubt the inception of trammel is what doubled the subscribers of the game.  I also don't agree that choice is always the best thing either.  Personally, I think games should stick to what they're supposed to be and if players don't like that, then they can choose to play another game.  Games that try and please everyone fail.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix

    I highly doubt the inception of trammel is what doubled the subscribers of the game.  I also don't agree that choice is always the best thing either.  Personally, I think games should stick to what they're supposed to be and if players don't like that, then they can choose to play another game.  Games that try and please everyone fail.

    Not meaning to be nasty, but this is pretty shortsighted and poor thinking, not to mention it's totally wrong. Games who manage to please the largest public trive, the others fail or remain tiny niche games.

    In your oh! so smart opinion, what is better? People playing on both PvE and PvP servers, increasing the customer potential of the game, and therefore increasing it's ability to patch in content regularly, or everybody playing on a gankfest PvP server, with all the PvE player quitting the game and therefore stopping giving money to the developers, limiting the growth potential of the game? It's also proved that the hardcore loot everything on death PvP players are a tiny minority, making it even worse.

    Arrogant developers like Aventurine will always remain niche companies with very little investment potential because of that. You can give the choice to players without sacrificing the base spirit of your game. If I was leading a MMORPG company making a sandbox with full loot PvP, I would also order my developer team to add PvE servers, or servers with less harsh rules, in order to increase my potential customer pool. I'd rather have people giving me money playing on specific servers than quitting my game... the result for the remaining players is the same, but for the company, it's just a waste of money.

    Yeah, like it or not, Trammel saved UO and doubled it's customer base by catering to the MAJORITY as well as the minority of hardcores. Origin made a very smart move, the only possible, even if a bit late and not perfect.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • BlindchanceBlindchance WhywouldyouliketoknowPosts: 1,081Member

    UO was a sandbox, DF is not.

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Toronto, ONPosts: 90Member
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix

    I highly doubt the inception of trammel is what doubled the subscribers of the game.  I also don't agree that choice is always the best thing either.  Personally, I think games should stick to what they're supposed to be and if players don't like that, then they can choose to play another game.  Games that try and please everyone fail.

    Not meaning to be nasty, but this is pretty shortsighted and poor thinking, not to mention it's totally wrong. Games who manage to please the largest public trive, the others fail or remain tiny niche games.

    In your oh! so smart opinion, what is better? People playing on both PvE and PvP servers, increasing the customer potential of the game, and therefore increasing it's ability to patch in content regularly, or everybody playing on a gankfest PvP server, with all the PvE player quitting the game and therefore stopping giving money to the developers, limiting the growth potential of the game? It's also proved that the hardcore loot everything on death PvP players are a tiny minority, making it even worse.

    Arrogant developers like Aventurine will always remain niche companies with very little investment potential because of that. You can give the choice to players without sacrificing the base spirit of your game. If I was leading a MMORPG company making a sandbox with full loot PvP, I would also order my developer team to add PvE servers, or servers with less harsh rules, in order to increase my potential customer pool. I'd rather have people giving me money playing on specific servers than quitting my game... the result for the remaining players is the same, but for the company, it's just a waste of money.

    Yeah, like it or not, Trammel saved UO and doubled it's customer base by catering to the MAJORITY as well as the minority of hardcores. Origin made a very smart move, the only possible, even if a bit late and not perfect.

    I understand that a game that is strictly PvE will likely have more players but that doesn't mean a PvP game can't have enough people to thrive.   UO was doing well enough.  There were lots of players on both servers I played on, when i used to play it.  Sounds to me like you just don't like PvP and that's fine, it's not for everyone.  You were obviously a victim of ganks and were without friends to fight back.  I can see how that might not be fun.  UO was designed, originally, to be a world where anything could happen at any time & that's what I liked about it.  Being full loot wasn't really a problem in UO.  Gear was not hard to come by.  I could have a very nice set of magic gear/weapons within 2 hours of hunting solo somewhere.  I also didn't don all my best stuff to go hunting solo.  I used the best magic gear when I had friends with me so that I had better chances of winning in battles and winning battles earned me other magical items which made up for times when I lost.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix

    UO was doing well enough.

    No it wasn't. The subscriptions began nosediving when other games (EQ/AC1) were release which offered the player the choice. It's not about what you or your friends percieved of the server they were playing on, this comes from the developers themself, and population numbers confirm it. The only reason why UO kept a decent player base before 1999 is because it was the only mainstream AAA quality MMORPG on the market, and people didn't have a choice if they enjoyed that kind of games (and don't come up with the other crappy MMOs that existed back then, they didn't come even close to UO quality and content wise).

    I will ignore the assumptions you made about my playstyle in the rest of your post, they are not worth answering to. Try to stick to facts, and not to assume how other people play and use those assumptions to dismiss what they say, and we will talk again.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • ScambugScambug TortugaPosts: 389Member
    Originally posted by Blindchance

    UO was a sandbox, DF is not.

    If DF isn't a sandbox than wtf is it? It sure as hell isn't a themepark.

Sign In or Register to comment.