off topic dont move (archeage)

[Rollbackprices]

Originally Posted by Kergan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When I think of a fun sandbox, I think UO. But UO can never happen again, not in todays over-saturated kickstarter funded market. The beauty of UO is you had the innocent victims, the traders trying to sell their wares, the roleplayers, the harvesters...and they had no choice but to PVP. This opened up the possibility of playing as a true villain, and for people to play the hero.

People say gamers keep coming back to EQ for nostalgia, but I don't believe that to be the reason at all. It offers something that no other games have.

UO, however, i believe is really a case of nostalgia over content. It was really fun for its time but when I went back and tried to play it again on the last IPY, it was super boring. The community is what made it great. EQ had community but also the content that made it super addictive. No other game offered the exclusivity of EQ progression.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Kergan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Belongs in off topic forums please move.

[BeautBabeC]

UO hands down best pvp mmo game all time

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by BeautBabeC [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

UO hands down best pvp mmo game all time

Except that it wasnt. Mechanically it was inferior to even EQ. Like most sandbox mmos of the past (uo/darkfall/mortal online) it had a flawed system where most people were one of 2 maybe 3 builds (dexer/caster). It lacked the diversity of EQ class system, even though hypothetically it would be possible using skill trees.

Then theres what rollback said with the motivation for pvp. EQ has so many things to compete over. Those were real reasons to pvp, not just for the sake of murdering people and taking their shit. In everquest your actions had consequences.

[Genedin]

Originally Posted by Kergan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When I think of a fun sandbox, I think UO. But UO can never happen again, not in todays over-saturated kickstarter funded market. The beauty of UO is you had the innocent victims, the traders trying to sell their wares, the roleplayers, the harvesters...and they had no choice but to PVP. This opened up the possibility of playing as a true villain, and for people to play the hero.

The problem is nowadays anything with forced world PVP is going to be a niche game of people that only want to play the hero and villain. Remove the innocent victims the heroes claim to protect and the PKs want to gank and you end up with an arena style shoot 'em up game.

It's just a delicate balance that could only have happened when there were hardly any other choices - people were basically forced to play it if they wanted to participate in the genre.

I don't think I've ever considered this point exactly and it may be true. Somewhat.

I think you'd need a lure to bring in the innocents. Again the sandbox building style game. Look at EQ next and landmark. With arguably the best worldbuilder/minecraft style game out, EQ landmark is going to attract plenty of people who don't want to pvp.

Combine these two styles of game and you may be able to attract both players.

To Rick Flairs point, you do need progression and you could still have it easily with the ability to make expansive games that exists these days.

[Kergan]

Originally Posted by Rollbackprices [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People say gamers keep coming back to EQ for nostalgia, but I don't believe that to be the reason at all. It offers something that no other games have.

UO, however, i believe is really a case of nostalgia over content. It was really fun for its time but when I went back and tried to play it again on the last IPY, it was super boring. The community is what made it great. EQ had community but also the content that made it super addictive. No other game offered the exclusivity of EQ progression.

I had the exact same experience on IPY, pretty much for the reasons I stated in my original UO posts. All the casuals were gone and you're left with a bunch of people who want to gank each other. It ruined the balance the game had initially that made it great.

The problem UO had is they never really knew why people liked the game, as evidenced by the changes they made to pretty much keep all the shitty parts of it and remove all the good parts. They tried to cater to the WoW crowd when that game took off, which pretty much went against everything the original golden era UO was all about. I left the game for good when the whole murder count nonsense got added, giving permanent stat reduction to people who died with a murder count. Later they removed open world PVP and restricted it to a separate copy of the world...so stupid.

This emu is really no different than IPY, but the difference is the game supports it. EQ was always a game that catered to the neckbeards, and large groups of them banding together. If you look at the WoW philosophy with raids...it's basically make the top tier only doable by the top 1%, then as you release a new top tier you make the older raids easier. It has the benefit of the neckbeards always staying on top, but still allowing the more casual players to see all the content a little bit behind the curve, but while it's still relevant. EQ doesn't work like that at all, in fact quite the opposite.

[Kergan]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except that it wasnt. Mechanically it was inferior to even EQ. Like most sandbox mmos of the past (uo/darkfall/mortal online) it had a flawed system where most people were one of 2 maybe 3 builds (dexer/caster). It lacked the diversity of EQ class system, even though hypothetically it would be possible using skill trees.

Then theres what rollback said with the motivation for pvp. EQ has so many things to compete over. Those were real reasons to pvp, not just for the sake of murdering people and taking their shit. In everquest your actions had consequences.

I'd argue that a game is a better PVP game if people do it just for the sake of doing it. EQ has always been objective based which has it's own charm, but in reality there isn't a whole lot of PVP in EQ even on a PVP server. People remember killing another player in EQ, in UO it was such a way of life it would be similar to remembering that you killed your 400th dar ghoul in lower guk.

[Kergan]

Originally Posted by Genedin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think I've ever considered this point exactly and it may be true. Somewhat.

I think you'd need a lure to bring in the innocents. Again the sandbox building style game. Look at EQ next and landmark. With arguably the best worldbuilder/minecraft style game out, EQ landmark is going to attract plenty of people who don't want to pvp.

Combine these two styles of game and you may be able to attract both players.

To Rick Flairs point, you do need progression and you could still have it easily with the ability to make expansive games that exists these days.

The problem lies in for PVP to be meaningful risk vs reward you need to essentially take things from other players by killing them. That just doesn't fit the way most players want in an mmo today. I think you'd have a real hard time bringing both crowds together and making it work. Even in a game like UO where it was great, you couldn't do it anymore. Like I said, when UO was out EQ wasn't even in beta yet...if you wanted to play a high fantasy style MMORPG it was your only option. I guarantee those people getting ganked were fucking pissed, but they didn't ragequit because there was nowhere else to go.