And the end of the day, it's not what you want, it's not what I want, it's what is good for the game, and what is good for the game is lots of players playing it.
Which involves not banning players who play for 14+ hours a day, help newbies whenever possible, and generally try to have a roleplaying atmosphere to get people into the "spirit" of Roma Victor.
Yeah, I would think banning people like that is not only a bannable offense in itself, but is a provocation worthy of death, and is a detriment to the game in general.
People don't get banned for no reason. KFR is a reasonable guy to a point, as with anyone you can only push them so far. So before you make a post or do something really stupid ask yourself, How many KFR points do I have? Or how important am I to this game currently? If you were banned you were negative on my first question, and expendable on the second question. Sorry it happened but move on to something else.
And the end of the day, it's not what you want, it's not what I want, it's what is good for the game, and what is good for the game is lots of players playing it.
Which involves not banning players who play for 14+ hours a day, help newbies whenever possible, and generally try to have a roleplaying atmosphere to get people into the "spirit" of Roma Victor.
Yeah, I would think banning people like that is not only a bannable offense in itself, but is a provocation worthy of death, and is a detriment to the game in general.
People don't get banned for no reason. KFR is a reasonable guy to a point, as with anyone you can only push them so far. So before you make a post or do something really stupid ask yourself, How many KFR points do I have? Or how important am I to this game currently? If you were banned you were negative on my first question, and expendable on the second question. Sorry it happened but move on to something else.
I have no problems with full loot, so let me just state that. However, its never going to work in an MMO. Why? Because there is way to much balancing issues involved in it. You bring up UO. Did you know that the numbers of people playing UO went UP after they made it so there is no full loot anymore? Im not saying thats the only reason why the number went up just saying thats some extra info for ya. Yes UO isnt full loot right now just in case you were wondering there is a thing called "Insurance" which is a great system IMO.
Actually, full-loot did in fact work in UO. With full-loot UO steadily grew to 185,000 subscriptions in two years and seven months.
And, yes, the subscribers did continue going up after full loot was removed, however what is important to note is that the subscriptions went up far slower. Essentially, after full loot was removed, UO suffered a loss in growth. That's not a good thing. Of course there were other factors; mainly the game was converted to have a carebear area piggybacked onto the original game.
Anyway, the facts, according to Electronic Arts Inc., are that UO grew by an average of almost 6,000 subscriptions per month with full-loot only. Six months after the no-loot area was introduced, the game had only grown by 15,000 more subscriptions to 200,000 - that's an average of only 2,500 subscriptions per month, much less compared to the full-loot game immediately before it. The spike to 250,000 active accounts only lasted for a brief few months surrounding the release of a retail package that included 7 free account keys and the subsequent release of a new housing area that required extra accounts to place the houses. It took UO two years and ten months to reach that short-lived peak, an average of about 2,000 subscriptions per month - and all that was gone in matter of a few months more as the game fell back down below 200,000 subs. Overall the carebear/no-loot areas and expansions have resulted in a loss of subscriptions as UO now sits around 100,000 subscriptions in a huge mess of PvP/PvM co-design.
Is it just a coincidence that immediately after drastic changes were made to the game design, such as no-loot areas, that subscription growth immediately began to slow down and never recover? The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest not.
There are already too many carebear MMOs in the world as it is. Many came to Roma Victor seeking something more. If something more is not offered, then what is the point? Why not play a much more highly polished well-funded game?
Its great that you can use that data, but at no time was full loot removed without other changes so it could have gone up slower for other reasons who knows.
But what we do know is they changed to a non full loot system, from a full looting system. That tells me something like full loot is not what players want.
On top of that ANY CHANGE whether its for the best or not is going to cause people that are playing to leave, at which time it will also make it harder to grow. They must have felt this change was something so needed that it out weighed that.
I dont have enough facts (I doubt anyone does) to know if full loot would have been better or not for UO to stay with, one thing I do know is that others have tried it and its failed big time. Its so hard to balance. The idea sounds great but doesnt work in the end.
My only point was that even a hardcore game like UO changed their mind on full loot. There had to be a reason. It wasnt like they couldnt code it in, they had to take extra time to code something else in.
Apparently what happened, is that even though Ultima Online was experiencing steady solid growth for over two and half years with a full-loot virtual world design, the EA executives saw the even greater success, of the much more highly marketed, consensual only Everquest and wanted to try to duplicate it.
So, they changed UO into more of a consensual carebear game. However, this actually backfired rather than helping. By copying EQ's consensual design, they shot themselves in the foot by actually putting their older game in direct competition with the much newer and prettier EQ. At the same time, EA also upset much of their 185,000 strong existing UO playerbase that were subscribing for the unique virtual world that UO had offered.
In relation to Roma Victor, it can have the same results. The more mainstream or "carebear" that RV becomes, the less of a reason people will have to play it over other games.
Apparently what happened, is that even though Ultima Online was experiencing steady solid growth for over two and half years with a full-loot virtual world design, the EA executives saw the even greater success, of the much more highly marketed, consensual only Everquest and wanted to try to duplicate it. So, they changed UO into more of a consensual carebear game. However, this actually backfired rather than helping. By copying EQ's consensual design, they shot themselves in the foot by actually putting their older game in direct competition with the much newer and prettier EQ. At the same time, EA also upset much of their 185,000 strong existing UO playerbase that were subscribing for the unique virtual world that UO had offered. In relation to Roma Victor, it can have the same results. The more mainstream or "carebear" that RV becomes, the less of a reason people will have to play it over other games.
thats total nonsense. If they could make more money from changing UO back to full loot they would have.
but no game has full loot because they would have less players.
If it were as bad as you say they would have just changed it back or at least limited it down more instead of making it better.
And also going back to RV, if RV were to put in Full loot, there would be NO pop left to play as the game cant handle full loot. (Atleast not like it is or will be anytime soon)
I have no problems with full loot, so let me just state that. However, its never going to work in an MMO. Why? Because there is way to much balancing issues involved in it. You bring up UO. Did you know that the numbers of people playing UO went UP after they made it so there is no full loot anymore? Im not saying thats the only reason why the number went up just saying thats some extra info for ya. Yes UO isnt full loot right now just in case you were wondering there is a thing called "Insurance" which is a great system IMO.
Actually, full-loot did in fact work in UO. With full-loot UO steadily grew to 185,000 subscriptions in two years and seven months.
And, yes, the subscribers did continue going up after full loot was removed, however what is important to note is that the subscriptions went up far slower. Essentially, after full loot was removed, UO suffered a loss in growth. That's not a good thing. Of course there were other factors; mainly the game was converted to have a carebear area piggybacked onto the original game.
Anyway, the facts, according to Electronic Arts Inc., are that UO grew by an average of almost 6,000 subscriptions per month with full-loot only. Six months after the no-loot area was introduced, the game had only grown by 15,000 more subscriptions to 200,000 - that's an average of only 2,500 subscriptions per month, much less compared to the full-loot game immediately before it. The spike to 250,000 active accounts only lasted for a brief few months surrounding the release of a retail package that included 7 free account keys and the subsequent release of a new housing area that required extra accounts to place the houses. It took UO two years and ten months to reach that short-lived peak, an average of about 2,000 subscriptions per month - and all that was gone in matter of a few months more as the game fell back down below 200,000 subs. Overall the carebear/no-loot areas and expansions have resulted in a loss of subscriptions as UO now sits around 100,000 subscriptions in a huge mess of PvP/PvM co-design.
Is it just a coincidence that immediately after drastic changes were made to the game design, such as no-loot areas, that subscription growth immediately began to slow down and never recover? The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest not.
There are already too many carebear MMOs in the world as it is. Many came to Roma Victor seeking something more. If something more is not offered, then what is the point? Why not play a much more highly polished well-funded game?
What you are saying is that UO was growing fast then growing slowly then declined. That was the normal lifecycle of most products. Nothing spectacular. After all, after they removed full loot the game is still growing, not like NGE.
UO declined because EQ stole a portion of the population. EQ allows both PVP and PVEs to play their own game, while UO forces PVEers to miggle with PVPers. Which model is more likely to succeed? UO has to accomodate the PVEers or it would have dwindled even faster.
Comments
Which involves not banning players who play for 14+ hours a day, help newbies whenever possible, and generally try to have a roleplaying atmosphere to get people into the "spirit" of Roma Victor.
Yeah, I would think banning people like that is not only a bannable offense in itself, but is a provocation worthy of death, and is a detriment to the game in general.
People don't get banned for no reason. KFR is a reasonable guy to a point, as with anyone you can only push them so far. So before you make a post or do something really stupid ask yourself, How many KFR points do I have? Or how important am I to this game currently? If you were banned you were negative on my first question, and expendable on the second question. Sorry it happened but move on to something else.
Which involves not banning players who play for 14+ hours a day, help newbies whenever possible, and generally try to have a roleplaying atmosphere to get people into the "spirit" of Roma Victor.
Yeah, I would think banning people like that is not only a bannable offense in itself, but is a provocation worthy of death, and is a detriment to the game in general.
People don't get banned for no reason. KFR is a reasonable guy to a point, as with anyone you can only push them so far. So before you make a post or do something really stupid ask yourself, How many KFR points do I have? Or how important am I to this game currently? If you were banned you were negative on my first question, and expendable on the second question. Sorry it happened but move on to something else.
AKA: Do you Verm, if no, leave the game
Actually, full-loot did in fact work in UO. With full-loot UO steadily grew to 185,000 subscriptions in two years and seven months.
And, yes, the subscribers did continue going up after full loot was removed, however what is important to note is that the subscriptions went up far slower. Essentially, after full loot was removed, UO suffered a loss in growth. That's not a good thing. Of course there were other factors; mainly the game was converted to have a carebear area piggybacked onto the original game.
Anyway, the facts, according to Electronic Arts Inc., are that UO grew by an average of almost 6,000 subscriptions per month with full-loot only. Six months after the no-loot area was introduced, the game had only grown by 15,000 more subscriptions to 200,000 - that's an average of only 2,500 subscriptions per month, much less compared to the full-loot game immediately before it. The spike to 250,000 active accounts only lasted for a brief few months surrounding the release of a retail package that included 7 free account keys and the subsequent release of a new housing area that required extra accounts to place the houses. It took UO two years and ten months to reach that short-lived peak, an average of about 2,000 subscriptions per month - and all that was gone in matter of a few months more as the game fell back down below 200,000 subs. Overall the carebear/no-loot areas and expansions have resulted in a loss of subscriptions as UO now sits around 100,000 subscriptions in a huge mess of PvP/PvM co-design.
Is it just a coincidence that immediately after drastic changes were made to the game design, such as no-loot areas, that subscription growth immediately began to slow down and never recover? The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest not.
There are already too many carebear MMOs in the world as it is. Many came to Roma Victor seeking something more. If something more is not offered, then what is the point? Why not play a much more highly polished well-funded game?
Its great that you can use that data, but at no time was full loot removed without other changes so it could have gone up slower for other reasons who knows.
But what we do know is they changed to a non full loot system, from a full looting system. That tells me something like full loot is not what players want.
On top of that ANY CHANGE whether its for the best or not is going to cause people that are playing to leave, at which time it will also make it harder to grow. They must have felt this change was something so needed that it out weighed that.
I dont have enough facts (I doubt anyone does) to know if full loot would have been better or not for UO to stay with, one thing I do know is that others have tried it and its failed big time. Its so hard to balance. The idea sounds great but doesnt work in the end.
My only point was that even a hardcore game like UO changed their mind on full loot. There had to be a reason. It wasnt like they couldnt code it in, they had to take extra time to code something else in.
-MrDDT
Apparently what happened, is that even though Ultima Online was experiencing steady solid growth for over two and half years with a full-loot virtual world design, the EA executives saw the even greater success, of the much more highly marketed, consensual only Everquest and wanted to try to duplicate it.
So, they changed UO into more of a consensual carebear game. However, this actually backfired rather than helping. By copying EQ's consensual design, they shot themselves in the foot by actually putting their older game in direct competition with the much newer and prettier EQ. At the same time, EA also upset much of their 185,000 strong existing UO playerbase that were subscribing for the unique virtual world that UO had offered.
In relation to Roma Victor, it can have the same results. The more mainstream or "carebear" that RV becomes, the less of a reason people will have to play it over other games.
but no game has full loot because they would have less players.
Yes I have to agree with the last poster.
If it were as bad as you say they would have just changed it back or at least limited it down more instead of making it better.
And also going back to RV, if RV were to put in Full loot, there would be NO pop left to play as the game cant handle full loot. (Atleast not like it is or will be anytime soon)
-MrDDT
Actually, full-loot did in fact work in UO. With full-loot UO steadily grew to 185,000 subscriptions in two years and seven months.
And, yes, the subscribers did continue going up after full loot was removed, however what is important to note is that the subscriptions went up far slower. Essentially, after full loot was removed, UO suffered a loss in growth. That's not a good thing. Of course there were other factors; mainly the game was converted to have a carebear area piggybacked onto the original game.
Anyway, the facts, according to Electronic Arts Inc., are that UO grew by an average of almost 6,000 subscriptions per month with full-loot only. Six months after the no-loot area was introduced, the game had only grown by 15,000 more subscriptions to 200,000 - that's an average of only 2,500 subscriptions per month, much less compared to the full-loot game immediately before it. The spike to 250,000 active accounts only lasted for a brief few months surrounding the release of a retail package that included 7 free account keys and the subsequent release of a new housing area that required extra accounts to place the houses. It took UO two years and ten months to reach that short-lived peak, an average of about 2,000 subscriptions per month - and all that was gone in matter of a few months more as the game fell back down below 200,000 subs. Overall the carebear/no-loot areas and expansions have resulted in a loss of subscriptions as UO now sits around 100,000 subscriptions in a huge mess of PvP/PvM co-design.
Is it just a coincidence that immediately after drastic changes were made to the game design, such as no-loot areas, that subscription growth immediately began to slow down and never recover? The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest not.
There are already too many carebear MMOs in the world as it is. Many came to Roma Victor seeking something more. If something more is not offered, then what is the point? Why not play a much more highly polished well-funded game?
What you are saying is that UO was growing fast then growing slowly then declined. That was the normal lifecycle of most products. Nothing spectacular. After all, after they removed full loot the game is still growing, not like NGE.UO declined because EQ stole a portion of the population. EQ allows both PVP and PVEs to play their own game, while UO forces PVEers to miggle with PVPers. Which model is more likely to succeed? UO has to accomodate the PVEers or it would have dwindled even faster.