Tabula Rasa

[Noah]

Originally Posted by Campa

Ya that's what I was thinking as well, was just hoping it wasn't the case or I hope you can have a ton of characters per server :P


Ok 2nd question, I've read through a lot of stuff and either I'm just not getting it or am just missing it, anyways: Do branch choices at earlier tiers effect your branch choices at later tiers??

It seems to me that they do not and just would like to know if that is correct.

oh and also based on their web page and stuff if you look at it, currently it looks like yes branch choices early affect your choices later - basically you branch to like fighter / rogue / caster or whatever the hell you want to call it, then the next step you branch off again.

[Campa]

Originally Posted by Noah

oh and also based on their web page and stuff if you look at it, currently it looks like yes branch choices early affect your choices later - basically you branch to like fighter / rogue / caster or whatever the hell you want to call it, then the next step you branch off again.

Ah I see that now. I was defeated by their site design, stupid me for thinking the class info would be listed on the classes section :P

[spentmotiff]

Originally Posted by Noah

oh man the week after they did that monster patch or whatever that made monsters much harder ( way way back in the beginning ) overnight orc mages went from being free kills to actually casting energy bolt and shit and you kill those guys and would find alot of loot on them that they had grabbed off random people who didn't realize how much stronger they had gotten. orc lords were good for that too, but mages were better.

That's right, the orcs in UO would loot your corpse when they killed you. What a really cool idea that never made it past UO. Granted, it wouldn't have too much place in today's light-to-nothing death penalty MMOs, but man that was a cool idea.

[Campa]

Originally Posted by spentmotiff

That's right, the orcs in UO would loot your corpse when they killed you. What a really cool idea that never made it past UO. Granted, it wouldn't have too much place in today's light-to-nothing death penalty MMOs, but man that was a cool idea.

Ya monster looting and monster gating were 2 highly under-appreciated aspects of UO IMO, hehe

[Kodylan]

Yeah just to reiterate, TR is NOT an FPS.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

Well it should just do it automatically.

Also, how can you make a FPS and not have a large emphasis on PvP? Why are all these new games doing "niche" shit and not going for the whole shebang? Why does it seem like the original UO is the most advanced MMORPG in terms of freedom and interactivity (which I feel are what make MMORPGs MMORPGs)?

From what I understand, pvp WILL come at some later point. My assumption would be that they likely want as smooth a launch as possible, without glaring class balance issues usually related to pvp muddying up the waters. I'm kinda glad they didn't try the forever failed pvp/pve combo model. It NEVER works out right, and theres always some class people gravitate to because its the best at pvp.

While freedom and interactivity are certainly wanted aspects, having separate rulesets for pvp and pve is really the only way for these games to have thier cake and eat it as well. Lots of people like pvp. Lots of others don't. The games that keep them in thier own theaters are the ones that can prosper most from both types. My guess is that we'll likely see an alternate ruleset server for pvp within a couple of months. Which I really don't mind. I'd rather wait for a well planned, well balanced pvp server, thats had an opportunity to glean what would likely work best from a separate pve ruleset.

[Campa]

Originally Posted by Rayne

While freedom and interactivity are certainly wanted aspects, having separate rulesets for pvp and pve is really the only way for these games to have thier cake and eat it as well. Lots of people like pvp. Lots of others don't. The games that keep them in thier own theaters are the ones that can prosper most from both types. My guess is that we'll likely see an alternate ruleset server for pvp within a couple of months. Which I really don't mind. I'd rather wait for a well planned, well balanced pvp server, thats had an opportunity to glean what would likely work best from a separate pve ruleset.

I don't know. I think the model LOTRO is trying out with its Monster Play system could be used pretty effectively. Especially in a game like TR where you have a clear definition of who the world's conflict is between AND because they plan to have a "dynamic" front-line.

Just add a couple of regions with PvMP and the only balance you should worry about is buffing the MPs should some clear advantage on the Player side be discovered.

Unless they build in some Lore for why the player's side would be divided and fighting amongst itself, PvP is going to feel like it does in every other PvE-centric MMO with a PvP-ruleset shard.......an afterthought.

[Jabberwhacky]

I dunno, EQ2 has two separate rule sets for PvP and it still sucks donkey balls (imo, and I will admit it is nice that fighters can actually TAUNT other people thus making a defensive fighter useful in PvP). Shadowbane had one ruleset and that game rocked. An unsteady client coupled with a dirth of content (both PvP and PvE, the world was just kinda empty, despite cooker-cutter cities scattered around) kept it down. The worldwide PvP was not what bit it in the ass.

I also think the idea and implementation of LOTRO's monster PvP is bullshit. It seriously bothers me that I get to choose between playing the "rar evil mordor death" monster or my lovey dovey halfling minstrel. That needs to be a choice you make and stick with, not just a whim. Most of these games have such little "reason" for PvP and making it completely arbitrary which side you play on just drives the point completely into the ground. I want a god damn world where I have affinities and enemies, reasons to do shit beyond "this is the team I picked." That's what MMORPG's should be. If I wanted a team scrimmage with no motivation other than pwning face, I'd play DotA, which I do. But I want more!!

[Draegan]

They mention stations and camps or whatever they're called being taken over at certain points. All done my mobs. I'm assuming if they ever implement PVP this will be something they do with PCs.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

I dunno, EQ2 has two separate rule sets for PvP and it still sucks donkey balls (imo, and I will admit it is nice that fighters can actually TAUNT other people thus making a defensive fighter useful in PvP). Shadowbane had one ruleset and that game rocked. An unsteady client coupled with a dirth of content (both PvP and PvE, the world was just kinda empty, despite cooker-cutter cities scattered around) kept it down. The worldwide PvP was not what bit it in the ass.

I also think the idea and implementation of LOTRO's monster PvP is bullshit. It seriously bothers me that I get to choose between playing the "rar evil mordor death" monster or my lovey dovey halfling minstrel. That needs to be a choice you make and stick with, not just a whim. Most of these games have such little "reason" for PvP and making it completely arbitrary which side you play on just drives the point completely into the ground. I want a god damn world where I have affinities and enemies, reasons to do shit beyond "this is the team I picked." That's what MMORPG's should be. If I wanted a team scrimmage with no motivation other than pwning face, I'd play DotA, which I do. But I want more!!

Excellent points all, for certain. But i'm not talking about just adding the ability of playing monsters or whatever. I'm not even talking about something as simple as altering the pve ruleset to suit pvp. I'm talking an alternative version of the entire game, with pvp as its central focus. You pick human, you fight player bane. You pick bane, you fight player humans. Simple as that, each side vying for its stronghold on the gameworld in the pvp version of the game. No npcs, just players (other than vendors, quest/tradeskill npcs, human/bane levelling mobs, etc...).

Or:

they factor in "factions", which could be used to explain why humans are fighting amongst themselves (one faction disagreeing with another's planning for the aftereffect). Either way, there pretty much needs to be two entirely different versions of the game. Stick with strictly pve, and only those without a primary interest in pve will play it. Mix the pvp into the pve, and only those who like pvp will play it. Keep them entirely separate, without intermingling thier rulesets (ala WoW, EQ, EQ2, AO, and every other failed rendition of it), and its a win/win situation.

PVE'ers get what they want, and PVP'ers get thier game as well. Healers overpowered in pve? Fine. But don't touch them in the pvp ruleset if they're fine. And vice versa. Changes in one ruleset have no effect on the other. Period. The development house that finally gets that shit right, can only accomplish great things. Theres no such thing as "balance" in a pvpve game. And these guys really need to stop trying to attain it for the sake of overall balance.

Keep it simple. Keep the rulesets separate. And only good can come from it.

[RiskyChris]

Originally Posted by masteen

Because it's not an FPS?

Because UO, in today's market wouldn't even qualify as a niche product? Huge barriers to entry (my first action in the game was to get ganked so fast I didn't even realize what happened), incredibly steep learning curve on how to build a non-shit character, massive death penalty, ect. Who the hell wants to worry about that shit anymore?

As much as I hate trammel, you don't need to release a modern UO with the same negative penalties to achieve a broad game. Even without PK threat and theft, UO was a vast game with so many different ways to play: real estate, house decoration, fighter, mage, bard, tamer (all played very differently), resource gatherer, crafter, etc.

(I've got two UO clients open right now, sitting in Moonglow =P)

[Zerai]

It's definately true that modern MMOs have lost the freedom. UO was balls to the wall open. EQ took the same sort of concept and removed quite a bit, but it was still relatively open. Then you look at WoW. And you have almost 0 freedom. Can't even kill town guards. Hell, they removed the ability for alliance to kill Wildhammer dwarves. Fuckers.

[Dumar]

Originally Posted by masteen

Because it's not an FPS?

Because UO, in today's market wouldn't even qualify as a niche product? Huge barriers to entry (my first action in the game was to get ganked so fast I didn't even realize what happened), incredibly steep learning curve on how to build a non-shit character, massive death penalty, ect. Who the hell wants to worry about that shit anymore?

no, it's because the mmorpg model has evolved into something that's just fucking stupid. it's a collection game you play with 24 friends and connect to the 'massive world' at town hubs where the limit to your interaction with other people in this 'massive world' is seeing their name off the item you just bought at the auction house.

the model fucking sucks for mmorpgs. ultima online was the most advanced mmo to come out. it came out in 1997, and it's 2007. the industry is pathetic.

[Rayne]

Originally Posted by Dumar

no, it's because the mmorpg model has evolved into something that's just fucking stupid. it's a collection game you play with 24 friends and connect to the 'massive world' at town hubs where the limit to your interaction with other people in this 'massive world' is seeing their name off the item you just bought at the auction house.

the model fucking sucks for mmorpgs. ultima online was the most advanced mmo to come out. it came out in 1997, and it's 2007. the industry is pathetic.

The industry doesn't evolve toward a niche. Its evolves toward the masses. Making what you, or I, or anyone else thinks is irrelevant if its not a collective thought. The bottom line being, the UO, EQ, M59 players of old, were the "niche" right from the beginning. Company A tries a specific model, it meets with great success, and then a huge following of companies B through Z follow suit.

What company F did 10 years ago is irrelevant. Because company F created its own niche, and didn't change its model. The MMO model is far from a constant.

[Rhaze]

there is a reason why EA will never release a "classic" UO server and that's because it will point out how wrong they have been the whole time.