Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

So Richard Garriott ...

2

Comments

  • KarteliKarteli Member CommonPosts: 2,646

    Richard Garriott could have been so much more if he never sold Origin Systems to EA :(

     

    On Topic: I would like if this game came out with a flat price with regards to housing, instead of having to make a 3-month car payment in hopes that this game eventually sees light, just to have a freaking house upon launch.  Bleech!

    Want a nice understanding of life? Try Spirit Science: "The Human History"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw&feature=plcp
    Recognize the voice? Yep sounds like Penny Arcade's Extra Credits.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    He said what he said about SotA to everyone, not just the "UO PvP veterans".  There were many more "UO Player veterans" than "UO PvP veterans".  What would you think that what he said was directed at a specific group?  More importantly, why would you think the comment was directed specifically at the group you put yourself in and not the much larger group of players that played on Trammel?

     

    It seems to me that the major problem here isn't what he said, it's what you wanted what he said to mean.

     

    I expected my group of UO veterans to be included in his statement. Why shouldnt i?

    To say it is a spiritual successor to UO dont exclude UO PvP. To leave out just about all details on PvP during kickstarter made many old UO PvP veterans pledge in hope for this game would be the next UO.

    So yes, i pledged on Richards words and a hope for this being the next UO with a PvP system close to that old game. And i am far from the only UO PvP veteran that did just that. 

    Saying it will be a spiritual successor to UO was what triggered my interest. Little to no information about PvP during kickstarter didnt make it easier. So many old UO PvP veterans have been searching for the next UO and hearing Richard the creator of UO claiming this will be the spiritual successor to UO triggered many of us to pledge. I bet no old UO PvP player that pledged on the words spiritual successor to UO saw a PvP and combat system lamer then WoW coming.

    It was a smart move to claim it was a spiritual successor of UO and leave out just about all details on the PvP system. Must have brought him alot of pledgers from the old UO PvP group that were longing for the next UO.

     

     

    Because he didn't mention PvP. 

     

    Because he counciled patience.  If he was sure what he was doing was what everyone wanted, he would have told everyone to get excited.

     

    Because he is a game developer, and game developers never give you any detailed information until much closer to release.  That's because they know they are going to disapoint somebody.

     

    Here's some advice.  You didn't ask for advice, but I'm giving you advice anyway.  Take everything a developer says about a game, and filter out anything that isn't actual information about game mechanics or in-game details.  What's left is actionable information.  For instance, what does "Spiritual Successor to UO" tell you?  The only concrete information is that is it a successor to UO, and that something about the game will be reminiscent of UO.  It could be landscapes, graphics, PvP, player trading or something else that you always ignored in the game.  Unless you liked every aspect of the game, there is no reason to think that being a spiritual successor to UO means the game will contain something you like.

     

    Now do this for everything single game that gets released because every single developer does this.  "It's great!"  "PvP will be important!"  "We'll have an in-game economy!"  None of these statements actually say anything.  Release after release people keep reading into these statements and buying into games they don't really like.  Stop doing that.  Free yourself.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    He said what he said about SotA to everyone, not just the "UO PvP veterans".  There were many more "UO Player veterans" than "UO PvP veterans".  What would you think that what he said was directed at a specific group?  More importantly, why would you think the comment was directed specifically at the group you put yourself in and not the much larger group of players that played on Trammel?

     

    It seems to me that the major problem here isn't what he said, it's what you wanted what he said to mean.

     

    I expected my group of UO veterans to be included in his statement. Why shouldnt i?

    To say it is a spiritual successor to UO dont exclude UO PvP. To leave out just about all details on PvP during kickstarter made many old UO PvP veterans pledge in hope for this game would be the next UO.

    So yes, i pledged on Richards words and a hope for this being the next UO with a PvP system close to that old game. And i am far from the only UO PvP veteran that did just that. 

    Saying it will be a spiritual successor to UO was what triggered my interest. Little to no information about PvP during kickstarter didnt make it easier. So many old UO PvP veterans have been searching for the next UO and hearing Richard the creator of UO claiming this will be the spiritual successor to UO triggered many of us to pledge. I bet no old UO PvP player that pledged on the words spiritual successor to UO saw a PvP and combat system lamer then WoW coming.

    It was a smart move to claim it was a spiritual successor of UO and leave out just about all details on the PvP system. Must have brought him alot of pledgers from the old UO PvP group that were longing for the next UO.

     

     

    Because he didn't mention PvP. 

     

    Because he counciled patience.  If he was sure what he was doing was what everyone wanted, he would have told everyone to get excited.

     

    Because he is a game developer, and game developers never give you any detailed information until much closer to release.  That's because they know they are going to disapoint somebody.

     

    Here's some advice.  You didn't ask for advice, but I'm giving you advice anyway.  Take everything a developer says about a game, and filter out anything that isn't actual information about game mechanics or in-game details.  What's left is actionable information.  For instance, what does "Spiritual Successor to UO" tell you?  The only concrete information is that is it a successor to UO, and that something about the game will be reminiscent of UO.  It could be landscapes, graphics, PvP, player trading or something else that you always ignored in the game.  Unless you liked every aspect of the game, there is no reason to think that being a spiritual successor to UO means the game will contain something you like.

     

    Now do this for everything single game that gets released because every single developer does this.  "It's great!"  "PvP will be important!"  "We'll have an in-game economy!"  None of these statements actually say anything.  Release after release people keep reading into these statements and buying into games they don't really like.  Stop doing that.  Free yourself.

     

    But he mentioned during kickstarter the game would have PvP and he also called it a spiritual successor to UO so it is not far fetched to assume he would deliver a PvP game close to old UO.

    Nothing is certain though when it comes to kickstarter and i learned my lesson. 

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    He said what he said about SotA to everyone, not just the "UO PvP veterans".  There were many more "UO Player veterans" than "UO PvP veterans".  What would you think that what he said was directed at a specific group?  More importantly, why would you think the comment was directed specifically at the group you put yourself in and not the much larger group of players that played on Trammel?

     

    It seems to me that the major problem here isn't what he said, it's what you wanted what he said to mean.

     

    I expected my group of UO veterans to be included in his statement. Why shouldnt i?

    To say it is a spiritual successor to UO dont exclude UO PvP. To leave out just about all details on PvP during kickstarter made many old UO PvP veterans pledge in hope for this game would be the next UO.

    So yes, i pledged on Richards words and a hope for this being the next UO with a PvP system close to that old game. And i am far from the only UO PvP veteran that did just that. 

    Saying it will be a spiritual successor to UO was what triggered my interest. Little to no information about PvP during kickstarter didnt make it easier. So many old UO PvP veterans have been searching for the next UO and hearing Richard the creator of UO claiming this will be the spiritual successor to UO triggered many of us to pledge. I bet no old UO PvP player that pledged on the words spiritual successor to UO saw a PvP and combat system lamer then WoW coming.

    It was a smart move to claim it was a spiritual successor of UO and leave out just about all details on the PvP system. Must have brought him alot of pledgers from the old UO PvP group that were longing for the next UO.

     

     

    Because he didn't mention PvP. 

     

    Because he counciled patience.  If he was sure what he was doing was what everyone wanted, he would have told everyone to get excited.

     

    Because he is a game developer, and game developers never give you any detailed information until much closer to release.  That's because they know they are going to disapoint somebody.

     

    Here's some advice.  You didn't ask for advice, but I'm giving you advice anyway.  Take everything a developer says about a game, and filter out anything that isn't actual information about game mechanics or in-game details.  What's left is actionable information.  For instance, what does "Spiritual Successor to UO" tell you?  The only concrete information is that is it a successor to UO, and that something about the game will be reminiscent of UO.  It could be landscapes, graphics, PvP, player trading or something else that you always ignored in the game.  Unless you liked every aspect of the game, there is no reason to think that being a spiritual successor to UO means the game will contain something you like.

     

    Now do this for everything single game that gets released because every single developer does this.  "It's great!"  "PvP will be important!"  "We'll have an in-game economy!"  None of these statements actually say anything.  Release after release people keep reading into these statements and buying into games they don't really like.  Stop doing that.  Free yourself.

     

    But he mentioned during kickstarter the game would have PvP and he also called it a spiritual successor to UO so it is not far fetched to assume he would deliver a PvP game close to old UO.

    Nothing is certain though when it comes to kickstarter and i learned my lesson. 

     

    Other developers are pretty clear about what they are developing on Kickstarter.  It's not Kickstarter that's the demon.  It's developers who don't give a clear description of their product, and the human ability (obsession?) with connecting dots that may or may not be connected. 

     

    Like that space game that pulled in over forty million dollars.  They were pretty clear about what the game would be and what it wouldn't be.  A lot of people have thrown money at that game, and there aren't any threads complaining about people thinking something would be in the game, and it's not going to be there.  It's not impossible for a developer to clearly describe what they are producing, just very rare.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • AstrobiaAstrobia Member Posts: 23

    A couple of points...

    On the risk vs reward thing their current brainstorming on the matter isn't a plan engraved in stone. THey plan to test it out and tweak to make it more/less harsh as needed till they find the happy medium where getting PK'd is something you want to go out of your way to avoid but you don't feel like quitting the game when it happens.

    Also the ransom system (which is different from an insurance system) is just one side of the coin. On the risk element, there also the fact whenever you die, all of your gear is damaged and needs repair, getting PK'd damages it even more than monster based deaths. On the reward side for the PK's part one of the brainstromed idea is you can freely loot resources and consumables, so their gold, crafting materials, potions, some (but not all) of their reagents, food.. And then the ransom system kicks in on a random selection of their combat gear... Which in all likely hood you don't want to steal anyway, as you'll get more from the ransom system than you will trying to sell it, and it is extremely unlikely you will want to use any gear you could steal from them for yourself since they are using an item affinity system. That is each persons gear levels up for themself exclusively. While it might be high level for them it's base level for you and you wouldn't want to switch to it to replace your gear you have affinity with unless it's about to break.

     

    Forget the other points... I assume open PVP? There will be modes where you can play one what is effectively a full PVP only shard. Will be much more highly populated then the full PVP shards you see in other games too since they are all merged into the one shard and even the people only temporarily flagging as PVP will pass through it while they are.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,809
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Tbau
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    spiritual successor,[1][2] sometimes called a spiritual sequel, is a successor to a work of fiction which does not build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, yet features many of the same elements, themes, and styles as its source material, thereby resulting in its nevertheless being related or similar "in spirit" to its predecessor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_successor

    There is nothing similar "in spirit" when you compare old UO PvP with SotA PvP. SotA is not a spiritual successor to that old Ultima Online game when it comes to PvP. UO was a hardcore PvP game with risk vs reward and consequences. 

    PvP was a small part of UO and thus not having a single element of it does not remove it from being its spiritual successor since it contains virtually everything else.

    in fact you are one of the few claiming it is not, showing yet again how in the minority your train of thought is.

    PvP was a major feature in UO 1997-february 2003. I could go as far as claim it was the main feature that was practiced the most during that time.

    And the exodus out, when people could choose, was noteworthy.

     

    Garriott says that their envisioned PvP system will fix the endemic griefing of UO.  I don't believe it, but I am going to wait to actually see it before making pronouncements.  As always, if everything has to perfect, the game you play will be the waiting one.

     

    Garriott would also have prefered to make a steampunk game, but the weight of his fans (and investors) expectations pushed him back into medieval fantasy UO clone territory.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Arglebargle
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Tbau
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    spiritual successor,[1][2] sometimes called a spiritual sequel, is a successor to a work of fiction which does not build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, yet features many of the same elements, themes, and styles as its source material, thereby resulting in its nevertheless being related or similar "in spirit" to its predecessor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_successor

    There is nothing similar "in spirit" when you compare old UO PvP with SotA PvP. SotA is not a spiritual successor to that old Ultima Online game when it comes to PvP. UO was a hardcore PvP game with risk vs reward and consequences. 

    PvP was a small part of UO and thus not having a single element of it does not remove it from being its spiritual successor since it contains virtually everything else.

    in fact you are one of the few claiming it is not, showing yet again how in the minority your train of thought is.

    PvP was a major feature in UO 1997-february 2003. I could go as far as claim it was the main feature that was practiced the most during that time.

    As always, if everything has to perfect, the game you play will be the waiting one.

    Of course i will wait, why should i play a game where developers again caved in to the never ending whine coming from PvE players. 

    This was Richard Garriot's original thought on world safety -

    [quote]

    What follows is a fictitious example of how I think it could play out. Imagine that newbies and Role Players have safe havens around the world. For PVP'ers this is so far no worse than UO which was VERY open PVP. Now give RP'ers some methods of "safe passage" around the world, that let them RP, but not necessarily have the easiest or most valuable "paths"... Imagine "safe paths" from safety area to safety area. But occasionally these tunnels are discovered and thus unavailable, or that real value is "just off the safe path", beckoning to you to step out of the comfort zones.


    Personally, I am a believer, we can get everyone the safety and openness they desire... stay tuned, and keep on commenting!

    Thanks,
    Richard Garriott 

    [/quote]

    https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-defaults-and-other-questions-answered-dev-replied.2002/

     

     

    This vision dont exist anymore. It went 100% carebear.

    After a year of whining the PvE players got their completely safe game world. There are no risk vs reward or consequences in SotA. The combat system will be a random, luck based cardgame.

    So it is the same story we seen the last +10 years, PvE players destroy it for the PvP players. They got all their wishes and everything the PvP crowd over at SotA forum wanted was denied by Richard Garriott and his developer friends.

    So yes i will definetly pass on this game. 

     

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,162

    How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...

    I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • Scott23Scott23 Member UncommonPosts: 293
    Originally posted by Aragon100
     

    I dont see my money at all well spent since SotA is as far as it could be from that old UO game when it comes to PvP. 

    And i do expect developers to stand by their words.

    Not to be snide or mean, but has there ever been an instance where developers have stood by their words when it comes to speaking about pre-development to a finished product?

    Hype is all well and good, but I always expect massive changes as something is developed.  This is why I seldom  donate pre-production. 

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...

    I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.

    Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.

    SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in  PvE players or casual PvP players?

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Scott23
    Originally posted by Aragon100
     

    I dont see my money at all well spent since SotA is as far as it could be from that old UO game when it comes to PvP. 

    And i do expect developers to stand by their words.

    Not to be snide or mean, but has there ever been an instance where developers have stood by their words when it comes to speaking about pre-development to a finished product?

    Hype is all well and good, but I always expect massive changes as something is developed.  This is why I seldom  donate pre-production. 

    They say they listen to their community but they only listen to the PvE players.

    It is very uncommon to exclude a major part of your community.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...

    I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.

    Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.

    SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in  PvE players or casual PvP players?

     

    Are these the same PvP players that felt betrayed when Trammel released and the majority of the players moved from Felucca to Trammel?  That means they've been playing MMORPGs for a very long time.  They have only themselves to blame for reading what he said and assuming it meant he was doing what they wanted rather than what he wanted.

     

    The more important question is why would a developer want to include hard core PvP rules?   A hardcore PvP ruleset will drive off more players than it brings in.  It's the reason most of the players moved over to Trammel when it was available, and it's the reason why most of the players stayed there.  A hard core PvP ruleset eliminates the possibility of including other rulesets.  A hard core ruleset requires that players not be safe.  RG's own words were that the game would have a balance of safety and openness or choice.  A hard core PvP ruleset doesn't allow for that.  So again, why would he, at any point, have included one?

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • gothokaosgothokaos Member UncommonPosts: 145
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    This vision dont exist anymore. It went 100% carebear.

    After a year of whining the PvE players got their completely safe game world. There are no risk vs reward or consequences in SotA. The combat system will be a random, luck based cardgame.

    So it is the same story we seen the last +10 years, PvE players destroy it for the PvP players. They got all their wishes and everything the PvP crowd over at SotA forum wanted was denied by Richard Garriott and his developer friends.

    So yes i will definetly pass on this game. 

     

     

    LOL! He is whining about "the carebears" now! We ruined EVERYTHING!!

    Maybe Richard will give you a graveyard outside of town so you can guard kill players! How about UOAssist? How about the other tools that let you see hidden players? 2 vs 15 LOL!! Now that is unbalanced unless your talking about killing new players! Sounds like Kung Fu theater!

    Ultima Online released in 1997!! I played and PVP'ed back then too! You don't see me whining about "The good ole days of ganking." They changed the game for a reason. The investors want popular games with subs, not people leaving because they keep getting griefed everytime they leave the city.

    You just want to be able to gank people again! Admit it!

  • psiicpsiic Member RarePosts: 1,627

    Is it ok for me to now say I told you so?

     

    I called this as a kickstarter con artist robbery project in the first place.

     

    Gets a ton of free money spends a fraction of that money on a pos game, pockets the rest and walks away laughing.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by gothokaos
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    This vision dont exist anymore. It went 100% carebear.

    After a year of whining the PvE players got their completely safe game world. There are no risk vs reward or consequences in SotA. The combat system will be a random, luck based cardgame.

    So it is the same story we seen the last +10 years, PvE players destroy it for the PvP players. They got all their wishes and everything the PvP crowd over at SotA forum wanted was denied by Richard Garriott and his developer friends.

    So yes i will definetly pass on this game. 

     

     

    LOL! He is whining about "the carebears" now! We ruined EVERYTHING!!

    Maybe Richard will give you a graveyard outside of town so you can guard kill players! How about UOAssist? How about the other tools that let you see hidden players? 2 vs 15 LOL!! Now that is unbalanced unless your talking about killing new players! Sounds like Kung Fu theater!

    Ultima Online released in 1997!! I played and PVP'ed back then too! You don't see me whining about "The good ole days of ganking." They changed the game for a reason. The investors want popular games with subs, not people leaving because they keep getting griefed everytime they leave the city.

    You just want to be able to gank people again! Admit it!

    I have no idea where you got the ganking from. Me myself play in one of the most skilled PvP guilds ever and we usually fight against equally skilled players outnumbered. The ganking can stand for you.

    2vs15 was not the standard day but our best two PvP players in UO during UO renaissance time could manage those odds sometimes. And pre-trammel was another game then post-trammel in felucca. Post-trammel was way more balanced and you fought players that wanted the fight. Praying on newbies is not our style.

    What SotA developers did was only listening to one part of their community, the PvE players. All suggestions made by the PvP crowd was rejected. That is not listening to your community. That is selective listening.

    SotA would have been alot more successful and have a way bigger community if it was the coming UO2. Carebear games are easy to find but a UO2 game would have stood out as something different then the mainstream crap we see today.

  • grndzrogrndzro Member UncommonPosts: 1,156

    IDFC the game is comming to Linux :)

    Will buy will play.

  • MaribuMaribu Member Posts: 14
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...

    I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.

    Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.

    SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in  PvE players or casual PvP players?

     

    Really?  I don't see any uproar over there.  What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said. 

    There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it,  and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp.  Is that the problem?  This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 8,277
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol
  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Maribu
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...

    I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.

    Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.

    SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in  PvE players or casual PvP players?

     

    Really?  I don't see any uproar over there.  What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said. 

    There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it,  and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp.  Is that the problem?  This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel.

    You wish, I have seen loads of old forum followers disappearing when the PvP system was revealed. So the ones you see today over there is mainly casual PvP players, the old UO players have left the game in disapointment and dont interact anymore. They have given up on the game.

    This will be very much revealed when the game goes live and everyone ask where are all the players?

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol

    SotA developers claimed this and that  nad held very little. They even claimed they listen to their community which they dont. They listen to a few vocal PvE players and all the PvP players suggestiont went in and out of their ears.

  • TbauTbau Member Posts: 401
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol

    SotA developers claimed this and that  nad held very little. They even claimed they listen to their community which they dont. They listen to a few vocal PvE players and all the PvP players suggestiont went in and out of their ears.

    Enough already, the polls on the SOTA site shows that the vast majority of backers do NOT want FFA. Deal with the fact that you are wrong.

  • stevebombsquadstevebombsquad Member UncommonPosts: 884
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol

    SotA developers claimed this and that  nad held very little. They even claimed they listen to their community which they dont. They listen to a few vocal PvE players and all the PvP players suggestiont went in and out of their ears.

    A few vocal PvE players....?????  It is a fact that the majority of players prefer PvE to PvP. This is why PvP is normally a secondary system in a MMO. Most of the people I know that played Ultima Online were more interested in the roleplaying, sandbox, and open world elements. Don't try to portray that you represent the majority because you don't. 

    James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Shival
    UO Vet here; played for 5 years on baja. Pledged for Sota. Happy with how its turning out. 

    Been hearing the same from friends who have pledged and following it. It seems to be headed in a good direction. 

    @OP, you already bumped your other thread. Did you need to create a new one, too?

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by Tbau
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol

    SotA developers claimed this and that  nad held very little. They even claimed they listen to their community which they dont. They listen to a few vocal PvE players and all the PvP players suggestiont went in and out of their ears.

    Enough already, the polls on the SOTA site shows that the vast majority of backers do NOT want FFA. Deal with the fact that you are wrong.

    Your wrong, a vast majority of the voters wanted full loot and not the carebear insurance system they instead implemented to please the carebears.

    Consensual PvP is ok by me so dont put words in my mouth i never said.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Originally posted by stevebombsquad
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    The problem is you hand over money with no agreement. At best its been, "We gona try and get this done with the money" There is no way to hold any one accountable. If you invest in a product this way, it can only be done with no expectations. Who is happy they helped fund Facebooks new 3D glasses Oculus? Did anyone get their cut? That was going to be a cheap option for gamers to get 3D. lol

    SotA developers claimed this and that  nad held very little. They even claimed they listen to their community which they dont. They listen to a few vocal PvE players and all the PvP players suggestiont went in and out of their ears.

    A few vocal PvE players....?????  It is a fact that the majority of players prefer PvE to PvP. This is why PvP is normally a secondary system in a MMO. Most of the people I know that played Ultima Online were more interested in the roleplaying, sandbox, and open world elements. Don't try to portray that you represent the majority because you don't. 

    You might be right but dont underestimate the numbers of old UO PvP players that pledged for SotA being the next UO PvP game. Especially since Richard Garriott claimed this SotA game should be a spiritual successor to UO.

    Polls over at SotA forums tell us that a vast najority want a more hardcore game then the one developers choosed to make.

    They didnt listen to their PvP community and instead went for pleasing the PvP uninterested PvE players every word. Just amazing.

Sign In or Register to comment.