Two reasons why UO still has those numbers.
Because of old timers like me, and low system spec requirements.
My analysis on the state of the game. A sad reality that we must address.
- Thread starter Ibarruri
- Start date
Two reasons why UO still has those numbers.
Because of old timers like me, and low system spec requirements.
That is one factor. But there are hundreds of "good games" out there. I mean what is good to you or I maybe different to what is a good game to someone else. Some people thing WoW is a good game while I thought it was anything but good. Others think Warthunder is a good game, but I think its meh at best. I think DCS is a good game, others think its to complicated.
My thought in saying UO is a 'good game' is that MO2 fanboys are always saying MO has no competition. When it does. There's several other shitty dead open pvp games. And one of them, UO, isnt dead or shitty, and is a better game than MO2.
Also yes warthunder is ass lmao.
I was never in the military, but in my CoT cadre, we would never have voted in people like that.
Last edited:
UO is a classic but from another era of gaming, saying UO is competing with mortal is some demented shit to say.
Ill never understand why you have such a fragile ego trying to reinforce what you say with unrelated made up stories. That fallacious chain of though you wield like your best weapon only makes you look like the fool you are.
I for example don't have the need to make up shit to discredit people, people like you often discredit themselves.
If it hurts that bad maybe you shoulda thought about suing SV, because there was nobody else to blame for that, yet here you are.
It saddens me that no other game came even close to old Ultima Online (Before Trammel, obviously).
That game had everything, man... You could do anything !! Even loot player houses...
I will never forget looting an entire tower with my guild of thieves and their pack horses transporting every single chest of treasures out of it...
There were guilds protecting newbies, there were PKs surronding cities, there were players who were considered heroes...famous pvpers that nobody was capable of winning on 1x1... Legendary player crafters sought by everyone who needed special weapons... guilds of pure assassins, reds.... guild wars inside towns... thieves acting on capital banks stealing from distracted players...Bounty hunters... fishermen sailing to the sea... boat fights.....PKs crashing events killing everyone.... merchants spamming at banks and negotiating prices with other players on live, instead of automated NPC vendors we have nowadays... people getting killed inside towns when going AFK...
Man...the moment you logged on that game, you knew there would be something interesting going on. Game was ALIVE....It was thrilling...you werent safe ANYWHERE.
What did we get after UO ?
Mortal online 1, Darkfall Online and then Mortal Online 2.... These 3 came full of expectations, brought thousands of players, they were actually good in the beginning....and all of them died for the very same reasons : Devs Overprotecting players... killing all the excitement.
For the last time, Devs...
Please save your game...
- Bring the Thieving system
- Bring a Siege System
- Erase 90% of NPC guards
Easy to do and will bring back thousands of players for sure.
Players want a thrilling game. Not something monotonous
what do u want sieging for?
for zergs to wipe out solo/small crew buildings? Very nice content, definitely gonna bring a lot of people to the game XDDDDD
like if the ultimate griefing tool is going to be well implemented by SV
I like the "idea" as well. But the reality is it isn't ever going to work. There is a reason why other AAA games have channels, shards, etc. People can't expect little ole SV to be able to pull off 10,000 players on one server in a realistic setting.
D
Dracu
Guest
Well they did manage 1.3k concurrent on main at release, then they increased the size of the server the concurrent player cap got less and less, which is what you expect when sv announces that the server is space is increased.
D
Dracu
Guest
Doesnt need to be smaller. Just needs content for smaller groups and points of contention where people naturally gravitate towards to fight over. But right now that isnt a thing
What do you mean ? Siege is a must...
If a zerg decides to destroy your building, so be it. Either join the zerg or make a new zerg...or pay for them to grant the rights of owning a house... or build somewhere hidden or near town or wherever...
Screw with them too.... make a group of 4 to 5 people and destroy one of the zergs member house !
Following your logic, there should be safe areas then, because a large group of pks would kill a lonely newbie farming something... SO, if 30 veteran players decide to kill one lonely newbie, whats the problem ? Do you actually think theres any problem at all ?
Nah... The game has to offer freedom. It doesnt matter if someone created a big group and it starts opressing everyone... Players can unite against them, screw with their members, etc.
The Devs shouldnt make rules to prevent anything.
Let players do the justice.
The suggestion remains :
- Thieving
- Siege
- Less guards
Result : More players
No, my logic Is theres way more elemental problematics that if not addressed it wont matter if sieging comes out.
I know how social structures operate in this game, i've probably sieged more assets in MO1 than anyone else in this thread.
I never said anything about safe áreas you are just making shit up.
I do consider zergs need balance, to encourage a diversity of groups instead of polarized massive groups. I've been in the biggest server wars in MO1 where a handfull of guilds had condensated most if not all players.
Those polarized social structures conditioned diversity and it wasnt healthy for players for a number of reasons that implied time sink activities and massive assets loss.
That conjunction of mechanics was what ultimately killed the game, the last massive population loss peaks. The never ending cold wars, just burnt people down.
So yeah if you ask me, Id say theres bigger and more important problematics than sieging right now, specially if its going to be introduced carelessly like they often do.
The game does have to offer freedom, i agree completly. I don't think hardbrake behavioral mechanics are required but i do believe theres balance required.
Nobody denies zergs should find strenght in numbers, the question Is how to encourage diversity and what will the tools be for solo players and small crews besides the obvious social interaction scenarios.
And im not talking about TC guards.
Thievery Is just another piece of content but Id hate to see it released when all the the content thats already ingame continues to be placeholder.
Well, ok... then the Devs should WORK on the siege system to release something balanced and interesting...Much better than releasing crappy fancy trinkets system, or worthless necromancy spells, dont you agree ?
What I meant in my post is that this game needs CONFLICTS...it needs action...freedom for players to be able to screw with other players, so that there will be fights between evil and good.
The way it is now, you cant do ANYTHING evil at all.... Its totally boring.
Theres way too much protection to players...its not even funny.
The only evil thing you can do is to kill someone who is one million kilometers away from civilization. Good luck finding someone over there !
You cant steal, cant push people to cliffs or rivers, cant kill horse inside towns, cant camp city exit anymore because there are guards outside, cant destroy houses, cant destroy house doors, cant lure wild animals on newbies, hell, cant even screw inside a famous Graveyard....
GOD DAMN IT
WHAT A BORE
I agree with all that. Just that i consider the shit thats already ingame Is broken and should be fixed before going any further, don't you think?
Id hate to see more placeholder content being added, such as trinckets and bounty hunter. But PVE Is garbage, crafting classes are garbage. And those are things that if well made will definitely contribute to conflict by setting stronger foundations.
I just don't think piling up more shitty content Is going to change whats wrong with the game.
Not if the map was actually designed for the 2k player cap limit. Anyone with a brain knew that there was no way the game could handle the amount of players Henrique was boasting about, the server was fucked with the first stress test in alpha (I think 1.5k players got in?) and very few logged for the second one.
They could have even released 2 smaller continents, one in EU and other NA. There u go regional servers without affecting the so important Vision....
Yes, but you gotta agree with something :
Even with all these bugs and unfinished craps, people enjoyed this game A LOT in the beginning of the year !
So, what really matter is the gameplay !! The gameplay was much better in february for example. There werent so many restrictions as today.
I could FEEL how happy every player was with the game back then.
Now, what you feel is a complete disappointment. What went wrong ?
Devs screwed things up by overprotecting players.
Id play anyday a bugged game with unfinished contents if the GAMEPLAY was cool and had amazing rules.
But id not play a game with marvellous graphics and tons of finished contents with a HORRIBLE GAMEPLAY, safe areas and crappy rules !
Completing or fixing the content should exacly be making better gameplay. Yes theres lots of reasons people quit since launch and part of that Is making pvp shit, flag and law systems are shit.
They didnt over protect people, they failed at it miserably. Instead of investing in learning curve and a true tutorial they end up making behavior hardbrake mechanics, let players farm inside towns protected by guards instead of forcing exploration.
I vouch for a remake of all those mechanics that failed miserably and went against the concept of the game itself. The illusion of justice delivered by the game design does nothing but frustrate all gamestyles. The punitive approachs are garbage and whoever thought the systems in place are good Is an idiot.