I'm thinking... is it me?
Dundee
lately?
Mages, in PvP and especially in PvM, are still too powerful. Although
I suppose a person could macro a lot and get really high resist and do
alright, if they are lucky, and mages, and pre-Eval'Int patch.
Course you almost have to _be_ a mage in order to get resist that
high. PvP seems to me these days to be sort of like a gun fight. If
I shoot you before you shoot me, then I win. Otherwise, you win. If
I am weaponless, I might be able to run away. Otherwise, not.
It's just not too thrilling.
I hate the macroing. I hate the muling. I do both, of course,
because I play UO, and that's how you play. But it seems like...
Erg.
Why would a person design a game this way? And then add skills like
Camping and Forensics which take the exact same number of skill points
from your available total as, say, Magery?!
I mean a bug is one thing. Little piece of code that doesn't work the
way it is supposed to. Like Energy Field, for example. And 1000
other things.
But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
system itself is just.... bad.
It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
Course that'll never happen.
The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
Boy am *I* in a mood. Not a very good one, it seems.
Dundee * Lake Superior * SkeptAck AT antisocial DOT com
uo stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
The Town of Skara Brae on LS: http:/members.xoom.com/skara/
Damocles
wrote:
<snip>
>
>But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
>system itself is just.... bad.
>
>It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
>don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
>UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
>
>Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
>Course that'll never happen.
<snip>
Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
the top even for a mage fan like myself. At the very least it should
go in at the same time they make shields effective against projectile
magic and hopefully fix the explosion spell problem (once they decide
that it is a problem).
Cirander
Dundee wrote:
> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> lately?
Look back at the past 18+ months. There are, and have been, only two
states: Either magery is/was overpowered or it is/was too weak. Either
way, people will complain. And rightly so. *Is* there a possible way to
truly balance magery? (I think both, meele and magery, cause too much
damage in a too short period of time.)
- Cirander
Zaphkiel
>But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
>system itself is just.... bad.
That's why it won't survive any competition.
>
>It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
>don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
>UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
I played Yserbius on The Sierra Network. It was simplistic, had
no graphics to speak of, and was totally 'kill monster, take treasure, repeat'.
I had fun there, too. I can have fun on any multi-player game because
I have a large circle of friends who have been online gaming for over
a decade now. I have actually met, in game in UO, ONE person who I now
consider part of my circle. Everyone else I play UO with are
people I already knew. People I can trust. People who will guard my
back when I need it. That's another part of the bad design.... The only
way to play and do well is to be part of a group, and it is next to
impossible to find people you can trust in game. Because the game
gives too great an incentive to be untrustworthy to people you don't
know.
>The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
I remember the first time I tried to make Beef Wellington. I cooked
the filet too long before I rolled it in the puff pastry, and made the
pastry dough too thick. It came out overcooked and tough. I felt bad
about it. But I learned from my mistakes, and now I can make it come
out at a perfect medium, with the crust golden brown.
The potential for UO will be realized someday. It just won't be UO
that does it. The dev team is incapable of learning from their mistakes,
because they refuse to accept that they ARE mistakes.
But someone else will. Be of good cheer. Online gaming is only
going to get better.
--Zaphkiel
jx...@po.cwru.edu
>
> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> lately?
>
> I suppose a person could macro a lot and get really high resist and do
> alright, if they are lucky, and mages, and pre-Eval'Int patch.
Eh...I agree that PvM is really imbalanced, but.... (see below)
> Course you almost have to _be_ a mage in order to get resist that
> high. PvP seems to me these days to be sort of like a gun fight. If
> I shoot you before you shoot me, then I win. Otherwise, you win. If
> I am weaponless, I might be able to run away. Otherwise, not.
This seems to be true with melee as well. Rather, that the attacker can
do a hell of a lot of damage before the victim can react. Somebody on a
horse walks right past me (can't see if he's in war mode or not),
suddenly smacks me with a deadly poisoned halberd. Sure, a halberd is a
rotten weapon for PvP, but it does a good bit of damage, +20% for
exceptional, +20% for GM anatomy, and with the damage now at the
beginning of the swing....
Of course, it doesn't compare to an explosion (cast off screen),
paralyze, e bolt (or another explosion + paralyze), e bolt, but then
again, magic reflect makes this no more deadly than the halberd.
Sure, magic reflect requires magery, but Ultima history says everybody
should have at least a little, and 30 magery on a warrior is plenty for
5th circle scrolls (why yes, so I am a scribe, mid-master even, what of
it?).
-Smedley, Summoner of Daemons(Sonoma)
bobobob
something like that! I really really really hate being beaten before I go
into war mode ..
Bah!
bobobob
Europa
Cirander wrote in message <36C5C89A...@netcene.com>...
>
>Dundee wrote:
>
>> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
>> lately?
>
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
|don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
|UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
Oh yeah. Sucks ass, actually.
I will never understand why the people who make these things (including
EQ, AC, etc.) insist on making their own RPG system. With all the well-done
ones and even just OK ones sitting on the shelf? Find one that gives results
you like and license it.
|Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
|Course that'll never happen.
I don't think it needs a total rewrite but it does need a heck of a lot of
work.
|The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
Yep.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days
when Victoria reigned." -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Dundee
wrote:
>Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
>for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
>its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
Sorry, too much emphasis on magery and game balance in my previous
post.
My criticism of the game mechanics go beyond magery, or game balance.
I'm not even too pleased with some of the design choices when it comes
to the topography. The size of the ocean is one.
Another: The teleporter to the lost lands in moonglow is in a
reagents shop that has a three-by-one walkway to enter.
Whomever designed a reagents shop in UO with a 3x1 entranceway was
*not* thinking, "some day, people will play this game".
Then in t2a - they DID IT AGAIN!!!!
And then they put teleporters from one to the other to _increase_
traffic in these shops!!!
Sorry, am I getting carried away with the exclamations?
Anyway, that's a no brainer. Imagine the really complicated sensitive
stuff that they've done without ever thinking, "some day, people will
play this game."
>That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
>the top even for a mage fan like myself.
My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
bank this morning.
And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
Dave
I thought your account got banned?
Dave
bobobob wrote in message ...
John D. James
> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> lately?
>
> Mages, in PvP and especially in PvM, are still too powerful. Although
> I suppose a person could macro a lot and get really high resist and do
> alright, if they are lucky, and mages, and pre-Eval'Int patch.
>
> Course you almost have to _be_ a mage in order to get resist that
> high. PvP seems to me these days to be sort of like a gun fight. If
> I shoot you before you shoot me, then I win. Otherwise, you win. If
> I am weaponless, I might be able to run away. Otherwise, not.
>
> It's just not too thrilling.
>
> I hate the macroing. I hate the muling. I do both, of course,
> because I play UO, and that's how you play. But it seems like...
> Erg.
>
> Why would a person design a game this way? And then add skills like
> Camping and Forensics which take the exact same number of skill points
> from your available total as, say, Magery?!
>
> I mean a bug is one thing. Little piece of code that doesn't work the
> way it is supposed to. Like Energy Field, for example. And 1000
> other things.
>
> But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
> system itself is just.... bad.
>
> It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
> don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
> UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
>
> Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
> Course that'll never happen.
>
> The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
>
> Boy am *I* in a mood. Not a very good one, it seems.
>
Well, actually, a GM camper would only have to put sround 50-60 points
into the skill because of the high contribution from stats. Meanwhile, a
GM mage has to put 95 or so points into the skill beacause of the small
contribution from stats.
But, yes, I agree in part, it should be much, much more difficult to get
to
GM mage than to GM blacksmith or GM mining or GM tailoring.
One os the reasons magery seems out of kilter is because all of the spells
came straight out of Ultima 5,6 and 7, with very little tweaking. The
spells worked just fine on a single-player game, but in a multi-player....
well, they don't.
--
Reality is a figment of my
imagination.
mailto:jo...@premier1.net
John D. James
<snip>
> >That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
> >the top even for a mage fan like myself.
>
> My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
>
> There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
> bank this morning.
>
> And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
I just ignore the insane people intentionally inflicting pain upon
themselves.
Either tht or I go get my insane character and stand on them. Eventually,
they
will flamestrike me instead and get guard whacked.
bobobob
We can go on and on about the flaws - things that, if implemented
correctly, would have made this game *truely* something special.
- The Economy: Come on! If they cared - they could have hired a
university student for cheap money as a consultant (anything!)to get this
thing working properly. Those studded bras/fancy shirts, reagents .. If
only UO had the simple supply/demand mechanism built in. That would not
have been that hard! (If sold(bras) > bought(bras) then braPrice = BraPrice
+ x && BraQuantity = BraQuantity + y) (this is a bad formula - but a good
one is not much more complicated). and the other way around .. Along with
this, things should be - if not equally - than almost equally viable. So
there is a sort of balance.
- Combat: Magery/Melee, etc - you put it more eloquently and with more
experience. It sucks. Like i mentioned in another post - I hate dying
before I even go into war mode ..
- Locations/Map: You touched on this too - some things - you just look
at them and go .. duh ...
- Skill system: Very good concept - very badly executed. Useless
skills, some take more to raise, some take less (following no apparent
rule). The way the cap is maintained - there's something fishy with that
too ...
- Notoriety system. Stupid as hell. There's no law, etc. No
consaquences, no nufin ..
I can mostly live with all these things - the game is still fun - but there
is much wasted potential.
bobobob
Europa
Dundee wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:26:53 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
>wrote:
>
>>Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
>>for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
>>its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
>
>Sorry, too much emphasis on magery and game balance in my previous
>post.
>
>My criticism of the game mechanics go beyond magery, or game balance.
>
>I'm not even too pleased with some of the design choices when it comes
>to the topography. The size of the ocean is one.
>
>Another: The teleporter to the lost lands in moonglow is in a
>reagents shop that has a three-by-one walkway to enter.
>
>Whomever designed a reagents shop in UO with a 3x1 entranceway was
>*not* thinking, "some day, people will play this game".
>
>Then in t2a - they DID IT AGAIN!!!!
>
>And then they put teleporters from one to the other to _increase_
>traffic in these shops!!!
>
>Sorry, am I getting carried away with the exclamations?
>
>Anyway, that's a no brainer. Imagine the really complicated sensitive
>stuff that they've done without ever thinking, "some day, people will
>play this game."
>
>>That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
>>the top even for a mage fan like myself.
>
>My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
>
>There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
>bank this morning.
>
>And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
>
bobobob
Why would that happen? I don't cheat - I've never even *seen* UOE. I help
newbies, I give money to beggers, I res people when they die - I have yet to
see a GM (so I couldn't have insulted him ..) - I don't even PK. You
probably have more of a chance for getting banned than I!
Why'd you think that?
bobobob
Europa
Dave wrote in message ...
![Undertaker[KGX]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXXUCmupJplbeIS3B2OLhEKPkauVECnaaxon89YGUvBFaPkMA=s40-c)
Undertaker[KGX]
Dundee wrote:
>
> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> lately?
>
> Mages, in PvP and especially in PvM, are still too powerful. Although
> I suppose a person could macro a lot and get really high resist and do
> alright, if they are lucky, and mages, and pre-Eval'Int patch.
>
> Course you almost have to _be_ a mage in order to get resist that
> high. PvP seems to me these days to be sort of like a gun fight. If
> I shoot you before you shoot me, then I win. Otherwise, you win. If
> I am weaponless, I might be able to run away. Otherwise, not.
>
> It's just not too thrilling.
Actually, it has come down to he that para's at the right moment, wins.
> I hate the macroing. I hate the muling. I do both, of course,
> because I play UO, and that's how you play. But it seems like...
> Erg.
Stats aren't as important as you may think. Balance is more important.
UT #2's stats are:
Tactics 100.0 100.0
Archery 99.1 99.0
Swordsmanship 94.3 93.8
Magery 90.9 89.2
Hiding 78.5 78.5
Meditation 73.6 73.6
Wrestling 68.0 65.1
Magic Resistance 46.1 46.1
Cooking 38.4 3.4
Camping 37.9 2.6
Evaluating Intelligence 35.4 35.4
Anatomy 18.8 18.8
Carpentry 18.7 0.7
Herding 18.6 1.0
Tracking 17.7 1.6
Poisoning 17.6 0.4
Lumberjacking 16.6 0.0
Mining 16.6 0.0
Animal Taming 16.4 0.2
Veterinary 16.3 0.5
Healing 15.5 0.8
Tailoring 14.9 1.9
Bowcraft/Fletching 12.5 1.2
Cartography 10.6 0.8
Lockpicking 10.5 3.0
Snooping 10.5 3.0
Inscription 8.8 0.2
Blacksmithing 8.3 0.0
Str 83 83
Dex 31 31
Int 100 100
He's in partial plate, that's why the numbers don't come out to 225
But as you can see, nothing stellar, and he does very very well.
> Why would a person design a game this way? And then add skills like
> Camping and Forensics which take the exact same number of skill points
> from your available total as, say, Magery?!
>
> I mean a bug is one thing. Little piece of code that doesn't work the
> way it is supposed to. Like Energy Field, for example. And 1000
> other things.
>
> But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
> system itself is just.... bad.
The game design was awesome. The changes made it suck, IMO. It was to
be an RPG with PvP as part of the central theme. We, the gaming public,
weren't ready for it. What killed UO from being a 5 star game were the
initial bugs and myopic algorithyms.
> It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
> don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
> UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
>
> Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
> Course that'll never happen.
Just put back the first client with all the current bug fixes and you
have a GREAT game.
UT
> The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
>
> Boy am *I* in a mood. Not a very good one, it seems.
>
David Veal
> Dundee wrote:
> > Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> > lately?
>
> states: Either magery is/was overpowered or it is/was too weak. Either
> way, people will complain. And rightly so. *Is* there a possible way to
> truly balance magery? (I think both, meele and magery, cause too much
> damage in a too short period of time.)
The biggest problem is it is a single skill, mixing combat and
non-combat capabilities. Most of the arguments over the effectiveness of
magery seem to center on its combat effectiveness and don't adequately
consider the whole package.
This isn't limited to magery, but it is the most extreme example of
it.
Everybody tends to think whatever sort of play they tend toward is
underpowered, and I imagine I'm no exception. However, in my experience
with my melee character (99 swordsmanship, 95 tactics), archey and magery
deliver a whole lot more damage faster to me than I do to them. Melee has
the advantage of delivering damage consistantly over a period of time ...
which is nice against player spellcasters, but not much else.
--
David Veal lv...@user.icx.net
David Homerick
Cirander wrote:
>
> Dundee wrote:
>
> > Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> > lately?
>
> Look back at the past 18+ months. There are, and have been, only two
> states: Either magery is/was overpowered or it is/was too weak. Either
> way, people will complain. And rightly so. *Is* there a possible way to
> truly balance magery? (I think both, meele and magery, cause too much
> damage in a too short period of time.)
Here's a goofy idea:
Give everyone -- newbie and old-timer alike -- 100 extra hit points.
-- David
Garrold
>My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
>
>There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
>bank this morning.
>
>And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
Think I'm with you here. I've had a real problem with meditation,
great skill, but people have just been casting demons absolutely
everywhere. All I have heard wherever I went was demon sounds within
houses, towns....well everywhere. Followed by ommmmmmm. And all, as
far as I could see, to grab the skill before anyone else did, because
of the way the worldwide skill system works.. Really, that is just
silly.
Damocles
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:26:53 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
>wrote:
>
>>Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
>>for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
>>its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
>
>Sorry, too much emphasis on magery and game balance in my previous
>post.
>
>My criticism of the game mechanics go beyond magery, or game balance.
>
>I'm not even too pleased with some of the design choices when it comes
>to the topography. The size of the ocean is one.
True, poor design on that one, not sure what they were thinking.
>
>Another: The teleporter to the lost lands in moonglow is in a
>reagents shop that has a three-by-one walkway to enter.
>
>Whomever designed a reagents shop in UO with a 3x1 entranceway was
>*not* thinking, "some day, people will play this game".
Heh, on Ches they finally added a teleport stone that lets you skip
the narrow walkway coming into the store.
>
>Then in t2a - they DID IT AGAIN!!!!
Yes, I've seen people deliberately block that bamboo staircase with
pets in positions that can't be pushed through.
>
>And then they put teleporters from one to the other to _increase_
>traffic in these shops!!!
>
>Sorry, am I getting carried away with the exclamations?
>
>Anyway, that's a no brainer. Imagine the really complicated sensitive
>stuff that they've done without ever thinking, "some day, people will
>play this game."
Hey, at least Bill the Tailor isn't screaming for me to go kill Jill
the Weaver so he can give me " ." anymore.
Okay okay, so they botched many of these things. I'll let DD take this
thread from here...I'm going to go take off my clothes and macro
elemental summoning and meditation.
Scott Morton
>into the skill because of the high contribution from stats. Meanwhile, a
>GM mage has to put 95 or so points into the skill beacause of the small
>contribution from stats.
Actually it doesn't work that way. As your skill increases the bonus
points from your stats decrease. By the time you've reached 100 in
any skill you arent getting bonus points anymore.
Reg LeCrisp
Silverlock
wrote:
I agree with you, and the worst part is that even though these things
have slipped in if ANY of the designers etc played on a regular basis
some of these could have been corrected. Someone would have said hey
getting into the moonglow bank nearly always requires a teleport to
get past the npcs in less then 5 minutes Why don't we make non combat
npc's walkthroughable? Hey that's a great idea lets extend it to all
non combat mode players and npc's. Ad in some maximum number per spot
to prevent crashing or lagging and you solve the problem. But of
course they haven't played so they don't know.
I tend to defend mages but mostly that's just due to pre-UO mage
syndrome, in Uo mages are a dime a gross and magery is far to easy,
expensive and time consuming true, but in no way HARD. :(
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:26:53 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
>wrote:
>
>>Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
>>for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
>>its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
>
>Sorry, too much emphasis on magery and game balance in my previous
>post.
>
>My criticism of the game mechanics go beyond magery, or game balance.
>
>I'm not even too pleased with some of the design choices when it comes
>to the topography. The size of the ocean is one.
>
>Another: The teleporter to the lost lands in moonglow is in a
>reagents shop that has a three-by-one walkway to enter.
>
>Whomever designed a reagents shop in UO with a 3x1 entranceway was
>*not* thinking, "some day, people will play this game".
>
>Then in t2a - they DID IT AGAIN!!!!
>
>And then they put teleporters from one to the other to _increase_
>traffic in these shops!!!
>
>Sorry, am I getting carried away with the exclamations?
>
>Anyway, that's a no brainer. Imagine the really complicated sensitive
>stuff that they've done without ever thinking, "some day, people will
>play this game."
>
>>That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
>>the top even for a mage fan like myself.
>
>My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
>
>There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
>bank this morning.
>
>And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
>
JubJub McRae
beta, but that's really not the whole story. The game is a big
undertaking, which demands resources OSI doesn't seem willing to dote
on it. Granted, some changes are made to combat the "big" problems in
the game, but little bugs and things which should have been caught,
and reported and fixed before the game ever hit the shelves abound.
Norse helms are called Nose helms for Christ's sake! Wouldn't ya
think that that'd have been noticed a /little/ while back? Armoires
eat items... Fish and fish steaks, and cutting in stacks. Server
boundaries nerfing dragons... House breakins...
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:02:22 GMT, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee)
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:26:53 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
Strider
>Just put back the first client with all the current bug fixes and you
>have a GREAT game.
Um, as far as I'm concerned, the notoriety system was a BUG.
A BIG HAIRY bug, that was abused in every way imaginable. :)
Can anyone remember what the penalty was for being PK under the Noto
system?
sunday
Dundee wrote:
> Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
> lately?
>
> Mages, in PvP and especially in PvM, are still too powerful. Although
> I suppose a person could macro a lot and get really high resist and do
> alright, if they are lucky, and mages, and pre-Eval'Int patch.
>
> Course you almost have to _be_ a mage in order to get resist that
> high. PvP seems to me these days to be sort of like a gun fight. If
> I shoot you before you shoot me, then I win. Otherwise, you win. If
> I am weaponless, I might be able to run away. Otherwise, not.
>
> It's just not too thrilling.
>
> I hate the macroing. I hate the muling. I do both, of course,
> because I play UO, and that's how you play. But it seems like...
> Erg.
>
> Why would a person design a game this way? And then add skills like
> Camping and Forensics which take the exact same number of skill points
> from your available total as, say, Magery?!
>
> I mean a bug is one thing. Little piece of code that doesn't work the
> way it is supposed to. Like Energy Field, for example. And 1000
> other things.
>
> But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
> system itself is just.... bad.
>
> It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
> don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
> UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
>
> Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
> Course that'll never happen.
>
> The potential is just heart'breaking, aint it?
>
> Boy am *I* in a mood. Not a very good one, it seems.
>
> Dundee * Lake Superior * SkeptAck AT antisocial DOT com
> uo stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
> The Town of Skara Brae on LS: http:/members.xoom.com/skara/
I have to agree, UO is fairly unbalanced. Hell, I don't think I have left
a guard zone in about 2 months. Just stay in town doing cafts like
smithing, and tailoring. I just don't feel like dealing with the
imbalances sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I love UO. It is a great
game. But it could have been so much better! I am just waiting to buy a
new machine ( right now I am on a p150), and a game that has more
potential than UO. I do not think EQ is it, but when I think it comes out
I will probably leave my UO world behind.
Sunday.
taran
skill takes 100 skill points. You can look at http://uo.stratics.com/ to
find the exact formula.
FWIW, I agree with Dundee. Magery is WAY too useful for what it costs.
Spend 100 points on magery and you don't need: Cooking, Hiding, Detect
Hidden, Lockpicking (to an extent). Plus you can travel from one side of
the world to another in an instant and blow stuff up.
If anything, Magery should be broken up into a couple different subskills.
Perhaps: Battle Magic, Defensive Magic, Travel Magic, Summoning,
Necromancy.
Maybe something else.
taran
--------------
taran wanderer
assistant pig keeper
chesapeake shard
--On Saturday, February 13, 1999, 4:48 PM -0800 "John D. James"
<jo...@premier1.net> wrote:
> Well, actually, a GM camper would only have to put sround 50-60 points
> into the skill because of the high contribution from stats. Meanwhile, a
> GM mage has to put 95 or so points into the skill beacause of the small
> contribution from stats.
>
> But, yes, I agree in part, it should be much, much more difficult to get
> to
> GM mage than to GM blacksmith or GM mining or GM tailoring.
>
> One os the reasons magery seems out of kilter is because all of the spells
>
> came straight out of Ultima 5,6 and 7, with very little tweaking. The
> spells worked just fine on a single-player game, but in a multi-player....
>
> well, they don't.
>
>
>
Harold Roberson
That I think, is what is ruining the game. EQ looks
sooooo good, just from the non-macro side of things.
The skill system I like. I'm not a fan of classes.
They need more magic skills I think, and they really
need to make recall an excape only spell... you mark
yourself somewhere, and that's where you recall to.
Leave mass transit to the high level mages.
I macro, and have mules too.. jee, doesn't everyone?
I hate macroing... but I can't advance my characters
w/o doing it anymore.
*sigh*
Greywind of Catskills
And yes, I'm in a mood too.. but it's a why bother
playing mood
Harold Roberson
Macroing being the key issue here. I well designed
game system would not have or allow macroing. In UO
macroing is almost a requirement. A 3rd Party program
IS a requirement.
There's also lots of stupid things in UO... but
that can be for another post.. my biggest right now
is the damn moonglow reg shop. I'd like to have a
nice little 1-1 sparring session with the genious
that designed that shop...and the t2a teleporter
locations..
Greywind - Catskills
Damocles wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:14:14 GMT, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee)
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >But even with _all_ the bugs fixed, even the little ones, the game
> >system itself is just.... bad.
> >
> >It's an interesting little island and I've had a lot of fun on it,
> >don't get me wrong, I'm just sayin', if you stand back and look at the
> >UO game system itself - just the mechanics - this is a _bad_ game.
> >
> >Tweak away. The thing ought to be rewritten from the ground-up.
> >Course that'll never happen.
>
> <snip>
>
> Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
> for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
> its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
>
> That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
Harold Roberson
"John D. James" wrote:
>
> Dundee wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > >That said, I think that the planned eval int changes may be a bit over
> > >the top even for a mage fan like myself.
> >
> > My biggest problem with magery, really and truly, is this:
> >
> > There was a *group* of naked people flamestriking themselves at the
> > bank this morning.
> >
> > And why? Because that's the way the game was designed.
>
> I just ignore the insane people intentionally inflicting pain upon
> themselves.
>
> Either tht or I go get my insane character and stand on them. Eventually,
> they
> will flamestrike me instead and get guard whacked.
>
> --
No they won't. The reason why they won't is because they are all
using UOA,UOE/UOP to macro. They use TARGET SELF. Anyone who doesn't
do this while macroing in town is fool. I've tried to kill people
that way in town. Spam text, stand on them.. nada. Target Self
is being used.
Harold Roberson
Silverlock wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:02:22 GMT, Dun...@LakeSuperior.com (Dundee)
> wrote:
>
> I agree with you, and the worst part is that even though these things
> have slipped in if ANY of the designers etc played on a regular basis
> some of these could have been corrected. Someone would have said hey
> getting into the moonglow bank nearly always requires a teleport to
> get past the npcs in less then 5 minutes Why don't we make non combat
> npc's walkthroughable? Hey that's a great idea lets extend it to all
> non combat mode players and npc's. Ad in some maximum number per spot
> to prevent crashing or lagging and you solve the problem. But of
> course they haven't played so they don't know.
>
> I tend to defend mages but mostly that's just due to pre-UO mage
> syndrome, in Uo mages are a dime a gross and magery is far to easy,
> expensive and time consuming true, but in no way HARD. :(
>
That's another kicker here.. in UO there is nothing else
to spend your money on. Really, what is there? If I don't buy
reagents, I bank can bank thousands of gold each day.
This is another problem UO has.. all the skills require you to
churn out THOUSANDS of items to gain skill. You sell those
Items for mega-gold after awhile. now what??
UO's entire system needs to be reworked. The map needs to have
the water removed. Too much damn water. They also need to
cut back on the number of NPC's in the game. WAY too many.
And while it isn't realistic, make them stand in 1 spot. Then
the server doesn't spend cycles figuring out where to move them.
Lots of little things, but these add up.
Greywind
Dundee
wrote:
>Can anyone remember what the penalty was for being PK under the Noto
>system?
Roughly the same as the penalty for being a newbie under the old noto'
system.
John D. James
> Nope, your stats bonus fades to 0 as you advance in a skill. GM in any
> skill takes 100 skill points. You can look at http://uo.stratics.com/ to
> find the exact formula.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
>
>
> FWIW, I agree with Dundee. Magery is WAY too useful for what it costs.
> Spend 100 points on magery and you don't need: Cooking, Hiding, Detect
> Hidden, Lockpicking (to an extent). Plus you can travel from one side of
> the world to another in an instant and blow stuff up.
>
> If anything, Magery should be broken up into a couple different subskills.
> Perhaps: Battle Magic, Defensive Magic, Travel Magic, Summoning,
> Necromancy.
>
> Maybe something else.
>
> taran
>
> --------------
>
On that I agree. Magery *should* be broken up into "schools". The UO magic
system is almost identical to the magic system of Ultima 5-7. Now, in a
single-player game it works just fine, but in a multi-player game as complex
as UO is, it doesn't. What I would like to see is:
1) The magery skill is eliminated.
2) Each spell has a skill rating. This rating determines the power (damage,
duration, etc) of the spell and indirectly the chance of casting it.
The chance of casting it is:
( intelligence * highestCircle ) / ( circle * spellRating )
3) The mage can choose to cast a spell at a rating lower than the actual
rating. This has the effect of making the spell easier to cast.
4) To gain the ability to cast spells of the next higher circle, the mage
must have a total of 100 points in the preceeding circle.
5) Gaining access to a new circle requires a "quest" to be performed. This
quest is simply attaining a pre-declared skill-level for another skill.
6) The maximum rating a spell can have is limited by the rating of the
"quest" skill that the mage selected for that circle. The quest skill
is called the circle's sponsoring skill.
7) When the character is created, the player indicates one of the initial
skills as the sponsor skill for the 1st circle.
8) No circle can have a spell of a higher rating than a spell in the next
lower circle.
9) If the sponsor skill for a given circle drops below the rating of one of
the spells in the circle, the rating of that spell also drops. Likewise,
if the sponsoring skill increases, the spells in that circle can also
increase.
10) The highest circle the mage can cast determines the skill title
(Apprentice, Expert, Novice, etc.).
Sure, it's complex, but in my not so humble opinion, magic should be complex.
One thing this system does is to make the mage depend on other skills that
don't nessesarily help his magic. It also means that unless the player is
carefull, he could use-up his skill cap long before reaching GM.
Brian Shoemaker
Its not how magery is in the game, its how you use it! There are tons of
ways you can mess with the combos of certain spells. You dont have to do
what every pker in sosaria does everytime 10 of them see a newbie chopping
wood. There are 64 spells that are at your disposal, you just have to mix
and match certain ones(in PVP combat). Tons of factors come into play. For
instance, if you can get around and take each of the 10 Pks one on one, you
could probably end up making them recall(or get accused of using a 3rd party
program). I myself am trying to come up with a certain combo that involves
this. Kewlio casts paralyze, ebolt,ebolt,ebolt. Maybe id throw a mana
vampire in there and start chasing his azz with arrows until i run into
something. Again, its how you use the spells that really matters.
Brian
GreyWolf adept mage--Chesapeake
Gwar adept warrior--Atlantic
Autolycus master rogue--Atlantic
Peter Steele grandmaster bard--Atlantic
Rommel
something like that.And you will get to pay another 50 dollars for the
privledge of being a paying beta tester for the last year or so........
David Veal
> I think Dundee's post was aimed at the game mechanics.
> Macroing being the key issue here. I well designed
> game system would not have or allow macroing. In UO
> macroing is almost a requirement. A 3rd Party program
> IS a requirement.
Players perceive very quickly that it takes Master or Grandmaster
capability in skills in order to do what they want. To achieve that in a
"reasonable" amount of time basically necessitates macroing, except maybe
for weapon skills. Nobody wants to be a 1st level mage in a world of
archmages for very long.
Given the way skills are acquired, I don't see how you prevent
macroing. You can design the server to try and detect macroing, but those
are easy to circumvent.
The classic concept of RPG advancement is not a long term winner in a
large scale game like UO. In tabletop RPGs it is easy for the GM to
tailor stories to the power level of the PCs, and there is something
meaningful for the characters to do while they build up their skills. In
a large game like UO, where all the characters mingle regardless of power
level, it is easy to find your wimpy starting character marginalized ...
so you macro him up until he's more capable.
> There's also lots of stupid things in UO... but
> that can be for another post.. my biggest right now
> is the damn moonglow reg shop. I'd like to have a
> nice little 1-1 sparring session with the genious
> that designed that shop...and the t2a teleporter
> locations..
Amen.
--
David Veal lv...@user.icx.net
Harold Roberson
they work better on the test shards with the changes to eval
int, but in "UO Reality" you do what the pkillers do or you
get pkilled...
Harold Roberson
David Veal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Harold Roberson wrote:
> > I think Dundee's post was aimed at the game mechanics.
> > Macroing being the key issue here. I well designed
> > game system would not have or allow macroing. In UO
> > macroing is almost a requirement. A 3rd Party program
> > IS a requirement.
>
> Players perceive very quickly that it takes Master or Grandmaster
> capability in skills in order to do what they want. To achieve that in a
> "reasonable" amount of time basically necessitates macroing, except maybe
> for weapon skills. Nobody wants to be a 1st level mage in a world of
> archmages for very long.
>
> Given the way skills are acquired, I don't see how you prevent
> macroing. You can design the server to try and detect macroing, but those
> are easy to circumvent.
>
> The classic concept of RPG advancement is not a long term winner in a
> large scale game like UO. In tabletop RPGs it is easy for the GM to
> tailor stories to the power level of the PCs, and there is something
> meaningful for the characters to do while they build up their skills. In
> a large game like UO, where all the characters mingle regardless of power
> level, it is easy to find your wimpy starting character marginalized ...
> so you macro him up until he's more capable.
yes and no. I was quite content early on to play a simple
woodsman/archer
character (when UO first came out and archery was.. uh.. a joke :) It
was
a long time before I picked up any magic or even went to a dungeon.
But then the power characters arrived in my neck of the woods. My
skills
were pitiful compared to theirs, and I realized I had to have magery.
I think that was the beginning of the end :)
Faerlyt
> non-combat capabilities. Most of the arguments over the effectiveness of
> magery seem to center on its combat effectiveness and don't adequately
> consider the whole package.
If it weren't for the fact that Magery takes the prize as "Most expensive
skill you could ever possibly learn" I'd say that magery, by itself, should
lose hands down in any fight. After all, it's 100 points, and you get lots of
neato tricks for that 100 points. Try comparing that to the 200 point equivant
for any other type of fighter. The money though.. the money makes it
<somewhat> balanced.
> This isn't limited to magery, but it is the most extreme example of
> it.
>
> Everybody tends to think whatever sort of play they tend toward is
> underpowered, and I imagine I'm no exception. However, in my experience
> with my melee character (99 swordsmanship, 95 tactics), archey and magery
> deliver a whole lot more damage faster to me than I do to them. Melee has
> the advantage of delivering damage consistantly over a period of time ...
> which is nice against player spellcasters, but not much else.
>
Melee is starting to be kinda spiffy. The change where they put the damage at
the begining vs. the end makes a lot of difference in shifting the balance
towards melee. And oh, even just within the melee types, it looks like Mace
Weapons (specifically Qtr-staffs) might very well be overpowered. Just judging
from some of the sparring I've done, that is. Sparring <with> a qtr-staff,
mind, not against. =)
- Faerlyt, who agrees that the three different "types" of combat may be a
little out of balance with each other.
Dundee
>If it weren't for the fact that Magery takes the prize as "Most expensive
>skill you could ever possibly learn" I'd say that magery, by itself, should
>lose hands down in any fight. After all, it's 100 points, and you get lots of
>neato tricks for that 100 points. Try comparing that to the 200 point equivant
>for any other type of fighter. The money though.. the money makes it
><somewhat> balanced.
I just don't think that's a very good way to balance the game. The
time/money "expense" of magery (or anything else) simply does not, in
the long run, matter one bit. Especially not with (say) tailoring
giving you the ability to earn 10k-12k per hour.
It's a design decision, of course. I just don't think it's a good
one. "This skill should be the best skill for any character to have,
on account of all the muling and macroing required to master it".
Eh.
>Melee is starting to be kinda spiffy.
I think a person with full plate, shield and decent parrying ought to
be nearly indestructible. But only now that magery pretty much
requires the person to run around in leather armor or worse.
If barding, stealing, etc. had similar "armor restrictions", then that
would go a long way towards balancing combat in general. Warriors
would be more viable - and a team of them could take down the baddies
in the game that right now, only mages can kill (and they can do it
solo').
As it is, I see a guy with full plate and shield and I *know* that
fellow can't kill me. I see a naked guy, and he can either steal and
recall away before he dies, or nuke me into black-n-white mode. Or
both.
I think it's silly to be more worried about naked people than armored
people.
>- Faerlyt, who agrees that the three different "types" of combat may be a
>little out of balance with each other.
Yeh, maybe just a bit.
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - SkeptAck AT antisocial DOT com
The Town of Skara Brae: http://members.xoom.com/skara/
UO related stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
Dundee
>be an RPG with PvP as part of the central theme. We, the gaming public,
>weren't ready for it. What killed UO from being a 5 star game were the
>initial bugs and myopic algorithyms.
I think if PvP were meant to be the central theme, than putting
everyone on the same team and then not punishing them for killing
their own team-mates was a bad idea.
Having some sort of mechanism - like the color-coded wars on the Abyss
shard now - to support a PvP oriented playstyle, should have been
there from the git-go - along with harsh penalties for killing "blues"
(or whatever your team's colors are).
The game would have benefited tremendously from having multiple
"kingdoms" (instead of one global empire of which we're all a part)
all at war with one another. Kill these guys and you're a murderer,
kill those guys and you're a hero... that sort of thing.
Raph Koster
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 18:26:53 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
>wrote:
>>Based on your posts, I'd say its more that you have a personal dislike
>>for magery as it's implemented in the game and would like to cripple
>>its use. They'll never do that, so that makes the game "bad" for you.
>Sorry, too much emphasis on magery and game balance in my previous
>post.
>My criticism of the game mechanics go beyond magery, or game balance.
If there was one thing I'd do differently in UO, it would be the skill
system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
works.
>I'm not even too pleased with some of the design choices when it comes
>to the topography. The size of the ocean is one.
I don't like this either. We were however bound to the original
continent. :(
>Another: The teleporter to the lost lands in moonglow is in a
>reagents shop that has a three-by-one walkway to enter.
>Whomever designed a reagents shop in UO with a 3x1 entranceway was
>*not* thinking, "some day, people will play this game".
>Then in t2a - they DID IT AGAIN!!!!
>And then they put teleporters from one to the other to _increase_
>traffic in these shops!!!
Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
-Raph Koster
Lead Designer, Ultima Online
Jack Benny
>
> Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
> Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
I tell you what.. if there's one thing I can sympathize with it's this.
I know all too well what you mean.
Jack
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|If there was one thing I'd do differently in UO, it would be the skill
|system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
|works.
You don't have enough room for a skill tree. You don't even have enough
room for a skill bush.
You might have room for a small skill potted fern, but that's it.
|Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
|Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
Fine, but did it have to be THERE? Why not OUTSIDE the mage shop instead?
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days
when Victoria reigned." -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Dundee
wrote:
>If there was one thing I'd do differently in UO, it would be the skill
>system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
>works.
Can't you change it?
Ron Findling
>system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
>works.
I agree. It can be automatically macroed, so it is. Any chance of
there ever being a massive revision of how skills are advanced, to
effectively eliminate this?
I submit once again my proposed revision of having to go to trainer
NPC's (a different random one in some city, you have to find the guy!)
every point or so of skill in order to permit continuing on
progressing in the skill - maybe even with a gold cost attached.
Finding out the secrets the guild protects, so to speak.
Do this, and automated macroing will not be nearly as effective - the
player will HAVE to break out of the macroing and do a mini-quest in
order to progress.
I could expand on this, and give more/better details, if requested.
JubJub McRae
>Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
>Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
>
>-Raph Koster
>Lead Designer, Ultima Online
So why not just throw it in the ever so busy Lycaeum.. or revamp the
magic system to get rid of reagents once and for all.
JubJub McRae
>Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
>Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
>
>
>-Raph Koster
>Lead Designer, Ultima Online
That fits perfectly with the general theme of things... make a bunch
of choke points outside of guard zones - despite all the comments
about PKing being a bit out of control, you seem dead set on fueling
it any way possible.
JubJub McRae
wrote:
Just a thought here, but maybe the dev team should just stop all work
on UO, and begin trying to make a better UO2 from the ground up given
what we know now. Beyond some sick emotional satisfaction, there's
not much a bunch of bells and whistles can do for a dead dog made from
sewn together mismatched, and inappropriate dog cat and whatever bits
and pieces.
Michael Ball
system was not fully thought out. Here is an excerpt from an earlier post of
mine on Skills and Classes.
"I am starting to believe that the entire issue of the way UO handles skills
does, for the most part, suck. Their 'automatic' maintenance of skills by
using them (and other factors), the skill cap system and atrophy is very
annoying. Perhaps if there was a way to flag 5 - 7 skills as your professions
skills and somehow maintain those skills differently, or assign skill points
instead of automatically adjusting skills would be better. Also, the atrophy
system does not work very well. I constantly use my bow, yet I will use a
skill, like arms lore, that I haven't used in ages and what is the first skill
to drop - archery. Dumb. Not mace (which I hardly use) or camping, which I
never use, but archery. What gives? I am not against atrophy, just that it it
is not done well.
I guess there are two ways to look at playing: do I want to design a character
I am happy with, or do I want to survive. Although many people may want to
start with idea #1, they migrate to idea #2. So, magery and resist magic are
very good skills to have. So is healing. So that uses up half of my 6-7 skills
(6-7 GM skills are all you can have). Well, I need to either make money or
save money by not having to buy certain things, so at least one other skill
goes towards a tradeskill. So, more than half of my GM skills are gone already
and I really have not defined a class or profession. I would suggest a plan
like I have for my own pen and paper game, The Guide to Adventure. Some skills
are harder to learn and cost more than other skills. A sword skill could
cost 3x amount to skill points. Mining and tailoring would cost less, say 2x
and camping would be the less costly at x. Therefore I could have a lot of
lesser skills, or a variety of middle skills or a few higher skills, or a
combination of any of this. Also, break up the magery by circles. Therefore I
could know 1st and 2nd level spells that cost me x amount to use, but higher
level circles cost more skill points, 2x, 3x, 4x. This way magic-users would
really concentrate on being magic-users, not tank-mages.
Although I am a ranger, and play how I think a ranger should (a la Lord of the
Rings), I find myself being drawn into the best skills for game-play, not
character play. This is not good."
Lilith
Jack Benny
> Just a thought here, but maybe the dev team should just stop all work
> on UO, and begin trying to make a better UO2 from the ground up given
> what we know now. Beyond some sick emotional satisfaction, there's
> not much a bunch of bells and whistles can do for a dead dog made from
> sewn together mismatched, and inappropriate dog cat and whatever bits
> and pieces.
ROTFLMAO!!!
UO2 - Bride of Frankendog
Jack
Damocles
McRae) wrote:
>>
>>Yeh, maybe just a bit.
>
>Just a thought here, but maybe the dev team should just stop all work
>on UO, and begin trying to make a better UO2 from the ground up given
>what we know now. Beyond some sick emotional satisfaction, there's
>not much a bunch of bells and whistles can do for a dead dog made from
>sewn together mismatched, and inappropriate dog cat and whatever bits
>and pieces.
Here's another thought: quit.
Davian
>
> > Fine, but did it have to be THERE? Why not OUTSIDE the mage shop instead?
>
> most popular entrace, so now we can't move it or change it without a
> huge outcry.
>
There might be a huge outcry if you changed it cities... or if you
changed it to another magic shop on Moonglow. But I really can't see
people complaining if you moved it outside the front entrance of the
shop it is in now.
I suppose some will complain about *anything*. But really, inside the
shop to outside the same shop is so minor...
Davian
Raph Koster
>On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:36:57 GMT, rko...@origin.ea.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
>|If there was one thing I'd do differently in UO, it would be the skill
>|system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
>|works.
> You don't have enough room for a skill tree. You don't even have enough
>room for a skill bush.
> You might have room for a small skill potted fern, but that's it.
Quite agreed. In implementing skill trees, we'd definitely need many
more skills. However, you may have noticed that as we add new skills,
we are essentially treeing them.
>|Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
>|Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
> Fine, but did it have to be THERE? Why not OUTSIDE the mage shop instead?
Believe me, I don't like it either. Of course, it's also the single
most popular entrace, so now we can't move it or change it without a
huge outcry.
-Raph Koster
Lead Designer, Ultima Online
Dennis Francis Heffernan
|dfra...@email.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) wrote:
|
|>On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:36:57 GMT, rko...@origin.ea.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
|
|>|If there was one thing I'd do differently in UO, it would be the skill
|>|system. :) SPecifically, lack of trees in skill, and the way usage
|>|works.
|
|> You don't have enough room for a skill tree. You don't even have enough
|>room for a skill bush.
|
|> You might have room for a small skill potted fern, but that's it.
|
|Quite agreed. In implementing skill trees, we'd definitely need many
|more skills. However, you may have noticed that as we add new skills,
|we are essentially treeing them.
Not a question of number of existing skills; a question of how many skills
you get to HAVE in the first place. That number is seven, which is not enough
for any significant skill tree system, unless by "skill tree" you mean "class
based".
|>|Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
|>|Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
|
|> Fine, but did it have to be THERE? Why not OUTSIDE the mage shop instead?
|
|Believe me, I don't like it either. Of course, it's also the single
|most popular entrace, so now we can't move it or change it without a
|huge outcry.
I am quite sure that if you moved it to a spot outside that mage shop
there would be a huge outcry...of joy.
Brandy
Raph Koster wrote in message <7aiagl$c6e$1...@remarQ.com>...
>dfra...@email.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:36:57 GMT, rko...@origin.ea.com (Raph Koster)
wrote:
>
>
>>|Oriignally, we only wanted the caves as traffic points between T2A &
>>|Britannia. They made us add the one in Moonglow. :(
>
>> Fine, but did it have to be THERE? Why not OUTSIDE the mage shop
instead?
>
>Believe me, I don't like it either. Of course, it's also the single
>most popular entrace, so now we can't move it or change it without a
>huge outcry.
>
>Lead Designer, Ultima Online
>
OK, so why do some shards have a teleporter outside the mage shop that
bypasses the chokepoint and others do not (specifically LS)?
Any chance of adding that nifty little feature to all shards?
Brandy (SBR, LS)
Michael Ball
>I think Dundee's post was aimed at the game mechanics.
>Macroing being the key issue here. I well designed
>game system would not have or allow macroing. In UO
>macroing is almost a requirement. A 3rd Party program
>IS a requirement.
You should simply get skill points from adventuring and assign those points to
skills. Harder skills cost more points. Thus, no macroing and makes it
worthwhile to adventure. Of course, there could be some small skill point gain
from just doing trades (i.e. selling goods to vendors gives you, say, 1
point per gold earned), and some skill point gain from actually performing a
skill (like rolling 100 or something). This would make skills very useful and
allow players to build their charcaters anyway they like. I hate this
automatic skill point/atrophy thing. All I do is worry about skills, instead
of playing (over-stated, but sort of true).
Fixing the skill system could only be done in a new game.
Michael
Michael Ball
>yes and no. I was quite content early on to play a simple
>woodsman/archer
>character (when UO first came out and archery was.. uh.. a joke :) It
>was
>a long time before I picked up any magic or even went to a dungeon.
>But then the power characters arrived in my neck of the woods. My
>skills
>were pitiful compared to theirs, and I realized I had to have magery.
>I think that was the beginning of the end :)
I agree. I wanted to play a 'ranger' character and started with archery and
tracking. Now you *must* have a good magery because:
1) Need free hands to drink potions. Why risk being kiled in battle
de-equipiing bows.
2) Most monsters have magic and therefore you need reflect and massive damage
spells.
3) Anti-PK tactics (recalling, magic reflect, offensive spells)
4) You would basically die without them.
5) You also need a high resist magic.
I know a lot of people are going to say how they have there "this-and-that"
character that has no magic, but for most people, mageyr is a must.
Michael
Michael Ball
>Is it me or has game balance actually gotten to be a bit _worse_
>lately?
No, I don't think it is just you. I too have thought that the game has gotten
worse (or not improved).
[snip: problems with magery being too powerful, etc ... which I basically
agree with]
>Why would a person design a game this way? And then add skills like
>Camping and Forensics which take the exact same number of skill points
>from your available total as, say, Magery?!
Here an excerpt my post from regarding skills and classes:
"I am starting to believe that the entire issue of the way UO handles skills
does, for the most part, suck. Their 'automatic' maintenance of skills by
using them (and other factors), the skill cap system and atrophy is very
annoying. Perhaps if there was a way to flag 5 - 7 skills as your professions
skills and somehow maintain those skills differently, or assign skill points
instead of automatically adjusting skills would be better. Also, the atrophy
system does not work very well. I constantly use my bow, yet I will use a
skill, like arms lore, that I haven't used in ages and what is the first skill
to drop - archery. Dumb. Not mace (which I hardly use) or camping, which I
never use, but archery. What gives? I am not against atrophy, just that it it
is not done well.
Dundee
wrote:
>Here's another thought: quit.
Now you know.... *that* isn't too bloody likely.
***
-Dundee
Damocles
wrote:
I know, no one ever quits. If they do, they come back after a while.
Besides, it's fun to bitch and moan in newsgroups. Probably worth $10
a month to many people just for membership in the "Ultima Online
Bitching Club".
JubJub McRae
posts to bitch about too.
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:10:52 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
wrote: