Cha Ching! Thanky Thanky!
Tolstoy
worthless in Tram. I hang out at the Buc's Den watching the goings and
comings of reds, order wars and what not.
Generally from looting the left overs, I can make 2k to 5k a day,
depending on if it's good or not. People leave all kinds of crazy things
laying around.
Tonite I log in and a big crowd is hanging around the portal to Vesper.
Suddenly a red "Lothar" pops in and is instantly whacked around. He gets
thru the portal and runs. Not for long, he's down and looted. I stand
and watch for a moment while crap flies up from his corpse. Then they
all take off.
I think to myself, wtf, I'll just cut up this corpse and head to vesper.
Usually reds don't have jack anyway, but I'll do it just this once.
The guard says to me, "Yes there was a bounty on Lothar's head. 108,000
gold pieces have been placed in your bank."
I then went and changed underwear.
Time to go on vacation now....
EVIL GRIN!!!
Tolstoy/GM Wanderer
Tolstoy
this time, but just did a "what the hell"...
I may get that house afterall!
Katherine wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:13:18 -0600, Tolstoy <tol...@uswest.net> expounded:
>
> >The guard says to me, "Yes there was a bounty on Lothar's head. 108,000
> >gold pieces have been placed in your bank."
> >
> >I then went and changed underwear.
>
> You must be the luckiest SOB in the game. I've never heard of anyone
> actually collecting a bounty on a red.
Tolstoy/GM Wanderer
Katherine
>The guard says to me, "Yes there was a bounty on Lothar's head. 108,000
>gold pieces have been placed in your bank."
>
>I then went and changed underwear.
You must be the luckiest SOB in the game. I've never heard of anyone
actually collecting a bounty on a red.
Katherine, Grandmaster Healer
Ciaran, Lia Fail Empire (Atlantic)
Hosting Dr. Dolittle's Stories <http://www.mhn.org/~kate/stories/>
Insane Ranter
> I've tried many times turning in heads for nothin. I almost didn't do it
> this time, but just did a "what the hell"...
>
> I may get that house afterall!
>
Seems like redy boy didn't know the old get a friend to turn ya head in for ya
trick.
Brandy
"Katherine" <ka...@mhn.org> wrote in message
news:39a364fe...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
.
>
> You must be the luckiest SOB in the game. I've never heard of anyone
> actually collecting a bounty on a red.
Corwin and I collected a ton of them when I was on LS. Most were fairly
small but we did get 84k if I remember right from a "Jesus H. Christ".
--
Brandy (-I-/SP)
Pix!
expounded:
>
> >The guard says to me, "Yes there was a bounty on Lothar's head. 108,000
> >gold pieces have been placed in your bank."
> >
> >I then went and changed underwear.
>
> actually collecting a bounty on a red.
I collected 5gp once, the one time I killed a pk.
Otara
wrote:
>Corwin and I collected a ton of them when I was on LS. Most were fairly
>small but we did get 84k if I remember right from a "Jesus H. Christ".
He still around?
Otara
Brandy
"Otara" <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote in message
news:osu8ps8nurelsrff2...@4ax.com...
Who, Corwin? Yes, he still plays LS. Jesus H. Christ? I have no idea...
--
Brandy (-I-/SP)
gen...@hexdump.org
: Who, Corwin? Yes, he still plays LS. Jesus H. Christ? I have no idea...
Didn't you all realize that you were supposed to quit playing LS when I
left? :)
Geesh.
--
Jeff Gentry gen...@hexdump.org gen...@rpi.edu
"You're one of those condescending UNIX users! ...."
"Here's a nickel kid ... get yourself a real computer."
Yuri G.
>
> Didn't you all realize that you were supposed to quit playing LS when
> I left? :)
>
> Geesh.
It lives! 8)
FWIW most of us abandoned LS a long time ago in favor of SP.
Mocker, DTM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Otara
Otara
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:25:50 GMT, gen...@hexdump.org wrote:
>Brandy <no...@ghjjrytrs.jkl> wrote:
>: Who, Corwin? Yes, he still plays LS. Jesus H. Christ? I have no idea...
>
RUTH SCHOONOVER
<gen...@hexdump.org> wrote in message
news:OMdp5.40093$NH2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Brandy <no...@ghjjrytrs.jkl> wrote:
> : Who, Corwin? Yes, he still plays LS. Jesus H. Christ? I have no
idea...
>
> Didn't you all realize that you were supposed to quit playing LS when I
> left? :)
>
> Geesh.
I did quit LS. The shard was totally worthless without your presence ;)
--
Brandy (-I-/SP)
gen...@hexdump.org
: FWIW most of us abandoned LS a long time ago in favor of SP.
Yah, I noticed :) I still lurk several boards, but life has been too busy
to really post anywhere. Most of RCoJ is long gone from UO, a few
(2?) still play LS and a few more (2?) play on SP.
gen...@hexdump.org
: I did quit LS. The shard was totally worthless without your presence ;)
Glad to hear that someone realizes this :)
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
Herod, Isoude, Andi, Guxx, and Grendel are all on LS in WE ... but
Herod and Guxx have been thinking of selling their accounts give or
take factions, and I haven't seen Grendel in a long time.
Oh yeah, and another old Cape has been running around Occlo of late,
refreshing houses and painting capes or something.
Dave Ballheim
Kale is going to show up on Saturday after the fact just to say hi to
some of us.
And what about you Corwin? Can't say I ever ran into you, but that
might just be a good thing :) I had very few dealings with the SBR in
the ole days and mostly kept myself to Silks Tavern and Trinsic.
AngusThorn of LS
-Dave
"Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)" wrote:
>
> Sab and Kal are on SP, albeit I dunno how active they are.
>
> Herod, Isoude, Andi, Guxx, and Grendel are all on LS in WE ... but
> Herod and Guxx have been thinking of selling their accounts give or
> take factions, and I haven't seen Grendel in a long time.
>
> Oh yeah, and another old Cape has been running around Occlo of late,
> refreshing houses and painting capes or something.
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 05:25:33 GMT, gen...@hexdump.org wrote:
>
--
David S. Ballheim I Visteon Corp.
Product Engineering Designer I SCII - Suite 155
Energy Transformation Systems I 14555 Rotunda Dr.
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>And what about you Corwin? Can't say I ever ran into you, but that
>might just be a good thing :) I had very few dealings with the SBR in
>the ole days and mostly kept myself to Silks Tavern and Trinsic.
>
>AngusThorn of LS
>-Dave
No plans to attend. I live on the east coast.
Hmm, aren't you a troll or something on the high council? Or do I have
you confused with another Angus? ...
Corwin
Dave Ballheim
> Hmm, aren't you a troll or something on the high council? Or do I have
> you confused with another Angus? ...
*Goes into a mad fit*
That was Lord Thor Ironside ye lubber!
*grumbles then smirks*
I held the Chancellor of the High Council position for some time before
retireing, but if ye ever attended a High Council meeting ye would have
seen me holding a Haliberd and calling the meetings to order.
I'm sure I've run into you before though Corwin, we held a few of our
meetings in Skara Brae early on during the origonal formation of the
Council. Believe it was hosted by the Skara Brae Council which was
heavily supported by the SBR. Course by this time I had tried to pull
myself out of all the political doings of the shard :)
Thor Ironside was the High Councilor for Minoc... half Troll... and very
very uuuugly! Har har har!
AngusThorn of LS
gen...@hexdump.org
: Any of the other ole Capes comming down for the UO world Faire? I know
: Kale is going to show up on Saturday after the fact just to say hi to
: some of us.
AnusPorn! I didn't know you were around here? :)
Speaking of which, what are people roudn these parts looking at as far as
"Game To Play When OSI Turns Off The Servers"?
gen...@hexdump.org
Corwin said first ...
:> Hmm, aren't you a troll or something on the high council? Or do I have
:> you confused with another Angus? ...
Well, he does look like a troll. I remember when I first saw him ... twas
outside of Trinsic in the woods, he was there with the shield of The
Tyrant. I wasn't sure which I should be more afraid of - the shield or
his ugly visage :)
Otara
>Dave Ballheim <dbal...@visteon.com> wrote:
>: Any of the other ole Capes comming down for the UO world Faire? I know
>: Kale is going to show up on Saturday after the fact just to say hi to
>: some of us.
>
>AnusPorn! I didn't know you were around here? :)
>
>Speaking of which, what are people roudn these parts looking at as far as
>"Game To Play When OSI Turns Off The Servers"?
No idea yet. I'd say thats a few years off yet anyhow.
Otara
gen...@hexdump.org
: No idea yet. I'd say thats a few years off yet anyhow.
You really think so - even with UO2 around the corner? I'd wager that
they're going to do everything in their power to at least encourage people
to also buy that game as well.
When I came back from a particularly busy period, I saw all this
trammel/felluca bullhockey (oh gee, now my gold is worth didlysquat), and
just said screw it.
I'm fairly interested in Anarchy Online but that's bout it.
Otara
>Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
>: No idea yet. I'd say thats a few years off yet anyhow.
>
>You really think so - even with UO2 around the corner? I'd wager that
>they're going to do everything in their power to at least encourage people
>to also buy that game as well.
If they're dumb enough to actively cannibalise a perfectly good
moneymaking product of their own, thats their loss.
>When I came back from a particularly busy period, I saw all this
>trammel/felluca bullhockey (oh gee, now my gold is worth didlysquat), and
>just said screw it.
It pretty good in our neck of the woods but we're a pretty small
community so there are some social pressures available that probably
arent on the bigger shards. Believe it or not I PvP these days - I
even got called the dread Otara once, but I think he was humouring me
:).
>I'm fairly interested in Anarchy Online but that's bout it.
I'm shocked :).
Otara
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>
>> you confused with another Angus? ...
>
>
>That was Lord Thor Ironside ye lubber!
>
>*grumbles then smirks*
Hehhee, sorry :)
Yes, I did attend some of the meetings from time to time, including
the Skara one. I announced that Skara was officially an Order Town ...
and then had the pleasure to dash out and help put down some Chaos
gate crashers. ;)
Last I heard, the high council moved off to Trammel, which might as
well be the moon, thanks to OSI's moonstone implementation.
Wasn't it Raph who thought it a bad idea to seperate the game
population? Ahh well, obviously he's dead and buried.
Corwin
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>"Game To Play When OSI Turns Off The Servers"?
Dunno 'bout round here - but most of the PvP'ers are biting at the
chomp for Shadowbane.
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>community so there are some social pressures available that probably
>arent on the bigger shards. Believe it or not I PvP these days - I
>even got called the dread Otara once, but I think he was humouring me
>:).
Ahh yes, give 'em a fast connect and you can't keep 'em down on the
farm anymore!
Which just reminds me of the age old UO question ... which came first?
Daddie's cable modem, or the PK char?
Corwin
Otara
Amber (WE/LS)) wrote:
>Ahh yes, give 'em a fast connect and you can't keep 'em down on the
>farm anymore!
Was Trammel really that did that. We have quite a big RP PvP setup
going now that doesnt get too hammered by people trying to horn in.
>Which just reminds me of the age old UO question ... which came first?
>Daddie's cable modem, or the PK char?
Ate. Does have a marked effect vs people who dont have one.
Otara
Dave Ballheim
able to build. Many of the player citys now lay as ghost towns, and the
once strong city councils are trying to sputter back to life upon
Trammel.
There was a rift within the High Council as to what it should do due to
this new "Fiction" that OSI had thrown into their laps. Course it had
no other option then to go with the game fiction... and follow Lord
British into the peaceful lands of Trammel to start anew.
Now is a time of rebuilding, but the community remains split. Many of
the Player towns and City Councils chose to stay behind in Feluccia, and
its slow going as far as building up the sense of community I think we
all once shared.
Of course... the High Councilors are keeping their eyes closely locked
on the happenings of their old home in Feluccia. And if ever we are
afforded the chance to strike back at Lady Minax (as in Faction Wars)
the High Council would most likely support a full scale war to win back
our old homelands.
*grumbles*
Course with our luck... Faction Wars will end up being a flop :P
AngusThorn
-Dave
--
Dave Ballheim
UG! Nay! Ye shall nay address me as such!!!!
*grumbles*
Ok ok... only a select few ever called me by that title gentrj :) Who
the heck are ye? And where the heck have ye been once I do know your
name :)
*chuckles*
As for me... and other games...
I'm looking into Anarchy Online... and keeping a close eye on it for
now. Other then that, UO has continued to keep my busy, just in
preparing for the off chance that the Faction Wars might just be worth
it :)
-Dave
AngusThorn
gen...@hexdump.org wrote:
>
> Dave Ballheim <dbal...@visteon.com> wrote:
> : Any of the other ole Capes comming down for the UO world Faire? I know
> : Kale is going to show up on Saturday after the fact just to say hi to
> : some of us.
>
> AnusPorn! I didn't know you were around here? :)
>
> Speaking of which, what are people roudn these parts looking at as far as
> "Game To Play When OSI Turns Off The Servers"?
>
> --
> Jeff Gentry gen...@hexdump.org gen...@rpi.edu
> "You're one of those condescending UNIX users! ...."
> "Here's a nickel kid ... get yourself a real computer."
--
David S. Ballheim I Visteon Corp.
Product Engineering Designer I SCII - Suite 155
Energy Transformation Systems I 14555 Rotunda Dr.
Phone: (313)755-2210 I Dearborn, MI 48120
gen...@hexdump.org
: If they're dumb enough to actively cannibalise a perfectly good
: moneymaking product of their own, thats their loss.
Well, look at it this way tho - I could see EA assuming that every UO1
player would want to play UO2, given enough 'push' .... that being said,
why would they want to devote a lot of development money to UO1? I dunno,
I just don't see them adding a whole lot to UO1. But who knows.
: It pretty good in our neck of the woods but we're a pretty small
: community so there are some social pressures available that probably
: arent on the bigger shards. Believe it or not I PvP these days - I
: even got called the dread Otara once, but I think he was humouring me
: :).
Hah :) I'd wager that has a lot to do w/ the local server -> It *is* a
whole lot more entertaining when your ping is less than 500 :) While I
don't like switches, I *really* don't like the ability to cross back and
forth between the lands at will ..... too many people live off the fat of
the land in err, whichever is PVP- and then hop on overwhen they feel lik
having a spot o' fun. Blah.
:>I'm fairly interested in Anarchy Online but that's bout it.
: I'm shocked :).
Heh :) At least I didn't say Shadowbane, eh? :) Actually, AO has a
system that is pretty much spot on with how I'd want things in how it
deals with PK (IE it is geographically based, but not the black/white that
UO had (city -> nothing. Out of city -> anything), rather it is a scaling
system based on how civilized the area is (and in the truly dead zones,
anything goes). Apparently, a fully rich play experience can be had in
the areas where you're at least "mostly safe" - although certain quests,
items, etc are only going to be found out in the wildlands (which I agree
with - I don't like how UO now has *everything* available to those who
aren't risking much).
I also like how they're driving it with a closed ended plot line -> even
tho that means that the game has a max lifespan, i think it is neat. The
story line behind it as well, while simplistic, is one that is definitely
workable and most people can easily identify with. Hopefully it takes
off.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Dunno 'bout round here - but most of the PvP'ers are biting at the
: chomp for Shadowbane.
Something tells me a lot of them are going to hate it ...
I dunno - after watching what they all say, and then looking at the game,
I don't see what the draw is for a lot of them beyond the initial slogan
of "I play games to crush".
I don't care what any of them say - the vast majority of "pvpers" do *not*
want equal competition against viable PvPers.
Furthermore, the whole "alliance building" thing doesn't really work -
look at SP. No one likes being on the losing side, so eventually everyone
joins the winning side except a few die-hards. Then it all sort of
implodes.
Rick Cortese
news:P6Hq5.14422$pu4.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
> : No idea yet. I'd say thats a few years off yet anyhow.
>
> You really think so - even with UO2 around the corner? I'd wager that
> they're going to do everything in their power to at least encourage people
> to also buy that game as well.
>
> When I came back from a particularly busy period, I saw all this
> trammel/felluca bullhockey (oh gee, now my gold is worth didlysquat), and
> just said screw it.
I have several million laying around myself that was made worthless, but IMO
it wasn't Trammel so much as the duping going on.
Can't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 200 were caught
and on average they had 250,000,000 gold each. I don't have a lot of faith
in OSI's ability to catch dupers, I figure they caught maybe 1 in 20.
>
> I'm fairly interested in Anarchy Online but that's bout it.
While I hate cheaters and exploiters more then most, I will tolerate a
certain number of them as being always being inbetween finding a cheat and
being banned for it. Cheaters will still play a game they can't cheat in,
but non cheaters leave.
I joined in with Diablo II the first day it came out, but after one night on
Battlenet and a few weeks in the Diablo newsgroup have completely dropped
out. I kind of feel burned by the experience. I had good feelings towards
Blizzard after Diablo which led me to get into Diablo II early; they used up
their 'good will'.
Here is my current delima: 1) I don't want to waste $60 for a game that is
so completely bug ridden it is unplayable. 2) I don't want wait until the
game is out for a year before it is playable because the best times as far
as the people you meet in game are the first ones on the bus. 3) I don't
want to play a game where cheating is rampant and ignored.
I can find some of this stuff out by reading newsgroups. I can't find out
how a company will deal with cheats and perverts until after the game is in
distribution.
It does make for odd career paths. I buy mutual funds based on who is
managing them vs performance since performance usually follows a successful
administrator as he changes funds.
Right now, Anarchy Online is a completely unknown quantity to people. It
could be the greatest technical achievement in the history of gaming, but it
would still suck the big one if it is poorly administered like Diablo II is
now and UO used to be.
Verant has an established reputation via EQ, they just don't tolerate
cheating at all. I still have problems with Raph as a game designer on
several non trivial issues, the free play gambit he gives thieves is such a
serious faux pas it is stunning. We also disagree on several issues with
communitee formation since I believe in "The Hierarchy of Needs" and so far
his game<s> have kind of ignored it in favor of conflict 24/7.
But I will buy Raph's game because it is going to be administered by Verant.
Now here is the career tie in. There should be an emerging job
classification ~"MMPOG administrator" or something along those lines. I
don't think Anarchy Online is going to get my money unless they hire a known
quantity or demonstrate their ability to manage the game during beta. By
'known quantity' I mean they announce they have hired Tyrant or one of the
admins from EQ who took an active role in keeping that game clean.
When you consider the sales and subscription numbers, EQ vs UO, it looks
like a well administered game is worth approximate and extra $12,000,000 a
year. I don't think the same numbers will be there for 'me too' products
now, but if they even want AC type numbers they will have to have a good
game admin to even survive with 10s vs 100s of thousand subscribers. This
makes game admins almost as valuble as good NFL coaches.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Ok ok... only a select few ever called me by that title gentrj :) Who
: the heck are ye? And where the heck have ye been once I do know your
: name :)
OOps, I forgot that you didn't know me by this moniker :P
Hmmm ....
think orc helms, bad fashion statements, and a hot headed mage.
And no, not Magical Bubba. :)
: I'm looking into Anarchy Online... and keeping a close eye on it for
: now. Other then that, UO has continued to keep my busy, just in
: preparing for the off chance that the Faction Wars might just be worth
: it :)
I'm just hoping I"ll have the time to play these things when something new
and viable comes out :) At least now it works out in that I'm not much
interested in UO (well, in a way I am, but i dunno) but i have not the
time :)
Dundee
> Furthermore, the whole "alliance building" thing doesn't really work -
> look at SP. No one likes being on the losing side, so eventually everyone
> joins the winning side except a few die-hards. Then it all sort of
> implodes.
From what I understand, the Shadowbane folk intend on stepping in to help out
the underdogs, just to keep that from happening.
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Mistress Morrigan
> "Game To Play When OSI Turns Off The Servers"?
NeverwinterNights
--
--
The Illustrious Chaotic Evil Mistress Morrigan (Trinity Goddess) "Goddess
of War" (Tuatha Dé Danann) TDD
Pronunciation {mor-rig-ahn}
=
High Queen and Goddess of the Tuatha Dé Danann.
As Macha she is Goddess of war and fertility
As Badb she is the water-goddess whose sacred well is a source of knowledge.
As Neman she is the goddess of war and battle.
-----------
<gen...@hexdump.org> wrote in message
news:_ezq5.47982$NH2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Dave Ballheim <dbal...@visteon.com> wrote:
> : Any of the other ole Capes comming down for the UO world Faire? I know
> : Kale is going to show up on Saturday after the fact just to say hi to
> : some of us.
>
> AnusPorn! I didn't know you were around here? :)
>
>
>
gen...@hexdump.org
: Can't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 200 were caught
: and on average they had 250,000,000 gold each. I don't have a lot of faith
: in OSI's ability to catch dupers, I figure they caught maybe 1 in 20.
Hmmm, wasn't aware of that. Ugh. 250,000,000? Were these people
retarded?
: While I hate cheaters and exploiters more then most, I will tolerate a
: certain number of them as being always being inbetween finding a cheat and
: being banned for it. Cheaters will still play a game they can't cheat in,
: but non cheaters leave.
Yup.
: Right now, Anarchy Online is a completely unknown quantity to people. It
: could be the greatest technical achievement in the history of gaming, but it
: would still suck the big one if it is poorly administered like Diablo II is
: now and UO used to be.
True - but really, the only established names are OSI and Verant, both of
whom are *terrible* in the admin role, so I don't really see why it makes
much difference.
: Verant has an established reputation via EQ, they just don't tolerate
: cheating at all.
I really, really, really dislike Verant. Sure, they don't tolerate
cheating (and in fact, have been overzealous in that effort) - but they're
just retarded in how they handle things.
: I still have problems with Raph as a game designer on
: several non trivial issues, the free play gambit he gives thieves is such a
: serious faux pas it is stunning. We also disagree on several issues with
: communitee formation since I believe in "The Hierarchy of Needs" and so far
: his game<s> have kind of ignored it in favor of conflict 24/7.
I actually really agree with Raph's ideas most of the time.
: But I will buy Raph's game because it is going to be administered by Verant.
I won't be buying his game because it is going to be administered by
Verant.
: 'known quantity' I mean they announce they have hired Tyrant or one of the
: admins from EQ who took an active role in keeping that game clean.
God I hope not :)
gen...@hexdump.org
: From what I understand, the Shadowbane folk intend on stepping in to help out
: the underdogs, just to keep that from happening.
And the d00ds everywhere will cry foul when that happens .....
I dunno. I mean, the system should/could/would *work* and work well (for
instance, the point that you raise). I just don't see it being the d00dly
utopia that they're making it out to be. I don't think that it will
*really* be the nectar of the gods that the d00dz think it is.
Drake
is a user friendly OS? Yeah, it's just selective about it's friends. *ba
dump*
<gen...@hexdump.org> wrote in message
news:q8Qq5.49491$NH2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
<snip the OT stuff>
Dundee
> True - but really, the only established names are OSI and Verant, both of
> whom are *terrible* in the admin role, so I don't really see why it makes
> much difference.
I was under the impression that OSI's customer service has actually improved
lately, whereas Verant has Milo saying things like "Shut up little man and
pay me my $10" on a company website, and Abashi threatening to nerf
"features" in order to shut people up. IIRC, the worst OSI ever did in that
regard was when Ironwill said he hated the test-center users (paraphrased).
> : Verant has an established reputation via EQ, they just don't tolerate
> : cheating at all.
>
> I really, really, really dislike Verant. Sure, they don't tolerate
> cheating (and in fact, have been overzealous in that effort) - but they're
> just retarded in how they handle things.
Like?
> : I still have problems with Raph as a game designer on
> : several non trivial issues, the free play gambit he gives thieves is such a
> : serious faux pas it is stunning.
Last I heard, Raph's opinion was that PvP thieving ought to just be removed
from the game.
> : We also disagree on several issues with
> : communitee formation since I believe in "The Hierarchy of Needs" and so far
> : his game<s> have kind of ignored it in favor of conflict 24/7.
I'm curious how the Hierarchy of Needs translates to an online environment.
Food, clothing, shelter? Don't need food (unless you're superstitious
regarding skill gain), seems a lot of people don't *want* clothing. And
shelter... well! You can't move through the forest without bumping into
someone's shelter.
> : But I will buy Raph's game because it is going to be administered by Verant.
>
> I won't be buying his game because it is going to be administered by
> Verant.
For all we know, Raph's next game is going to be a Playstation][ game anyhow.
:P
Or maybe not. On the Verant site they're advertising for a lead designer
"for a massively multiplayer game on a next-generation game console," in San
Diego. Gee, wonder what game console THAT could be.
Also for an Online Marketing Manager - "Responsible for planning and
implementing all marketing activities in relation to ... customer acquisition
and retention programs...".
Maybe that's the problem, they don't have anyone responsible for customer
retention! A big suit. Someone important, with a big office that has
windows. Someone to say, "Don't say mean things to the customers. That's a
bad thing to do." So they can all say, "Oh. I did not know that. You learn
that stuff by majoring in business and/or marketting? Wow."
However, they are quick to point out that they have 75% retention after a
year. You know what that means? 75% of the people that have ever bought the
game, are still playing it. Or maybe "most people that quit, sell their
accounts on eBay." Eh, six of one'.
:P
> : 'known quantity' I mean they announce they have hired Tyrant or one of the
> : admins from EQ who took an active role in keeping that game clean.
>
> God I hope not :)
Hrm... I'm not sure what they could ever do to make their consumers happy.
Classes-n-levels. Ugh.
But not saying mean things to them on their website and webboards would
probably be a pretty good start.
I'm going to buy the first game that I can DANCE in. That's a much more
important feature than housing, guild warfare, mounts, and so on.
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Dundee
> I dunno. I mean, the system should/could/would *work* and work well (for
> instance, the point that you raise). I just don't see it being the d00dly
> utopia that they're making it out to be. I don't think that it will
> *really* be the nectar of the gods that the d00dz think it is.
Heh. I agree. I don't think Shadowbane is being designed for them, though.
Really, a game designed around the concept of team vs. team conflict is a
social game. Antisocial people aren't going to do well there (or if they do,
then something went seriously wrong in the design-phase...).
Definitely it won't appeal to grief-players. It's no fun to try and annoy
people that aren't annoyed by what you're doing. Being attacked by your
enemies in Shadowbane won't be annoying, it'll be expected.
Are there many grief-players in Quake?
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Gimble
news:39abe2c1.2509422497@news.swbell.net...
<snip>
> Are there many grief-players in Quake?
In deathmatch? Not that I know of.
In more team-oriented games such as Team Fortress (and its variations)?
Absolutely.
Thankfully, many of the grief players are "coded out of existance", but
whenever they find a loophole, they definitely take advantage of it.
Spamming in their own respawn areas, blocking essential doorways with
buildable items (sentry guns), etc. etc.
There is a reason that team damage is turned off on most of the public
servers (and it's not that the game is more fun and challenging if you can't
damage your teammates). It's that, even in the Quake community where combat
is a "given", there are more than a few who are more than happy to be grief
players if they are given an opportunity.
The Quake-type community has several advantages in dealing with grief
players over the UO community:
1) The number of possible actions that can be performed by a player are
quite limited (in comparison to UO's multitude of skills). As a result, it
is easier to use code to prevent grief play.
2) The non-commercial nature of most Quake servers allow the admins to
freely ban players who cause disruption to the game. As a result, grief
players have to either find servers that are not well administered, or keep
moving as they are banned from servers they visit.
3) The narrow focus of Quake-type games ensures that most players on the
server have roughly the same expectations from the game ( Usually PvP only:
I kill. I get killed. I restart and go again). UO, with such a wide
variety of interactions ( PvP. PvM. Trades people. Escort services.
Combinations of the previous), makes it very difficult for the various
people to expect a certain level of interaction, expections, and reward.
4) Ratio of admins to players. Typically, a player server will have no more
than 32 players, and it is not uncommon on many servers to have at least one
player with administration privilege ( RCON access ). I do not know what
OSI's admin/player ratio is, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than 30 to
1 ( 300 admins per shard during peak times seems a little optimistic to me).
As a result, it's a lot easier for an admin to "see" what's going on and
take corrective action early.
That being said, when I play Quake-type games (usually Half-Life: Team
Fortress Classic), I know to frequent a few servers, where the server
moderaters are quite good, and the grief players have very short visits.
There have even been a few where team damage has been turned on, due to the
excellence of the server admins being able to control the grief players.
gen...@hexdump.org
: OT a bit here but looking at your sig Jeff I had to ask, you know that unix
: is a user friendly OS? Yeah, it's just selective about it's friends. *ba
: dump*
Heh :)
gen...@hexdump.org
: I was under the impression that OSI's customer service has actually improved
: lately, whereas Verant has Milo saying things like "Shut up little man and
: pay me my $10" on a company website, and Abashi threatening to nerf
: "features" in order to shut people up. IIRC, the worst OSI ever did in that
: regard was when Ironwill said he hated the test-center users (paraphrased).
Well, you pretty much nailed the image down I have of Verant. I guess,
the way I view the two groups is like this:
Verant: Bunch of dickheads running the show. Out only for the money,
don't care at all about the game (yes, I know, that *is* good for
business, but ....). Generally need a clue.
OSI: Bumbling, stumbling their way through things. Their very long
history of bending over backwards to be all things to all people is long
since worn thin, and they just can't seem to get anything "right". They
too, generally need a clue - but for the opposite reason.
: Like?
The Milo incidents. All the various Abashi-isms. Brad and The
Vision. People getting banned - not for cheating, but for being "too
smart for the AI" (I remember one incident where one guy had figured out
the spawn of this one particular area down to the second - and he was
using the built in time command to handle it. He would say something
weird looking - but intelligble to his group, to keep them informed of
where everything was. Some GM type person thought he was using a 3rd
party due to that and banned him). I dislike how they handled camping the
Big Spots (like the planes - where you schedule time). Etc etc
: Last I heard, Raph's opinion was that PvP thieving ought to just be removed
: from the game.
I tend to agree, but only because it simply causes more trouble than it is
worth - not because I disagree with the notion of it.
: Maybe that's the problem, they don't have anyone responsible for customer
: retention! A big suit. Someone important, with a big office that has
They do, however, have the anal retention down tho :)
: Hrm... I'm not sure what they could ever do to make their consumers happy.
: Classes-n-levels. Ugh.
The thing is - Everquest *is* designed to appeal to the mass CRPG gaming
audience. The player of all those single player CRPG type games *wants*
to have a fairly easy walk through, where they bash monsters and gain
levels. That they can now chat with people is icing on the cake,
IMO. Sad, but true - that is the average gamer, I believe.
: I'm going to buy the first game that I can DANCE in. That's a much more
: important feature than housing, guild warfare, mounts, and so on.
OWOOOOOOOOOO or whatever the frig it is called :)
gen...@hexdump.org
: Heh. I agree. I don't think Shadowbane is being designed for them, though.
They seem to think that it is, though. A lot of the people I'm talking
about aren't the *complete dickheads*, just the *mostly dickheads* ->
these people believe themselves to be your Joe PVPer, but are really your
Joe SemiGrief PKer (for instance, the KDOLS/GC types). They all believe
that SB is being designed Just For Them! Of course! IT said that they
play games to crush!!!
I think tho, that the mass influx of this type of player will have a
deleterious effect on the game, sad to say.
Rick Cortese
news:q0Rq5.55580$_s1.6...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Rick Cortese <rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
> : Can't remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 200 were
caught
> : and on average they had 250,000,000 gold each. I don't have a lot of
faith
> : in OSI's ability to catch dupers, I figure they caught maybe 1 in 20.
>
> Hmmm, wasn't aware of that. Ugh. 250,000,000? Were these people
> retarded?
Hmmm, I guess in a round about way since it seemed to be greed that drove
them. 250 mil => $500 to $1,000 on eBay. Kind of like bank robbers that
write a hold up note on personalized stationary. I like to use retarded as a
descriptor myself that implies more then just IQ. Things like "social
retard", so as far as being master criminals or scam artists or cheaters,
they were definately retarded in that context.
> : Right now, Anarchy Online is a completely unknown quantity to people. It
> : could be the greatest technical achievement in the history of gaming,
but it
> : would still suck the big one if it is poorly administered like Diablo II
is
> : now and UO used to be.
>
> True - but really, the only established names are OSI and Verant, both of
> whom are *terrible* in the admin role, so I don't really see why it makes
> much difference.
>
> : Verant has an established reputation via EQ, they just don't tolerate
> : cheating at all.
>
> I really, really, really dislike Verant. Sure, they don't tolerate
> cheating (and in fact, have been overzealous in that effort) - but they're
> just retarded in how they handle things.
I haven't been following EQ, I see Dundee's post and ack your comments, so I
will modify my position to exclude them.
gen...@hexdump.org
: descriptor myself that implies more then just IQ. Things like "social
: retard", so as far as being master criminals or scam artists or cheaters,
: they were definately retarded in that context.
Yeah .... but that makes you really wonder how many "smart ones" out there
got away with a lot of cash. I mean it was like the first dupe bug way
back when -> what kind of idiot would think that having 3 castles,
multiple towers and millions of gold wouldn't attract attention only 1
month into the game. :)
: I haven't been following EQ, I see Dundee's post and ack your comments, so I
: will modify my position to exclude them.
I don't play the game - haven't for over a year now. I just see what gets
posted over on Lum's site - which is, admittedly, a rant site, so only
posts the bad about the various games (mostly) .... but, based on the
"bads", I don't really envision the game having enough "goods" to really
make up for it in my mind.
Yuri G.
>
> Furthermore, the whole "alliance building" thing doesn't really work -
> look at SP. No one likes being on the losing side, so eventually
> everyone joins the winning side except a few die-hards. Then it all
> sort of implodes.
Hrm? Which was the "winning side" on SP? OGD were well on our way to
"winning" SP Test, ancient history now... Since going permanent SP has
had any number of dominant factions: first UDL, then the CF alliance,
the GC era, the SLA thing, even KGB had a strong week or two...
Whenever one group gets too powerful the others tend to ally against
them, perpetuating a sort of natural equilibrium which doesn't jive with
your claim that "everyone joins the winning side..."
Mocker, DTM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ronald In 't Velt
wrote:
<snip>
>I kill. I get killed. I restart and go again). UO, with such a wide
>variety of interactions ( PvP. PvM. Trades people. Escort services.
Escort services? I know there is a brothel on SP, but I have never
heard of an escort service in UO! You have a phone number of one on
Europa? *grins*
-------------------------------------------
Ronald In 't Velt
Please remove MUX from my address to reply.
Rick Cortese
<snip>
> I'm curious how the Hierarchy of Needs translates to an online
environment.
> Food, clothing, shelter? Don't need food (unless you're superstitious
> regarding skill gain), seems a lot of people don't *want* clothing. And
> shelter... well! You can't move through the forest without bumping into
> someone's shelter.
I could sum it up and I think you would get it. Basically you need a secure
place to store yourself and your crap, then you buy some black sandals.
OSI still doesn't get it what with fractions and town take overs type stuff.
You shouldn't be able to take over towns *EVER*, just the "happy hunting
grounds" is the ticket.
I've been to factions on TC and I will give it the "Rick Cortese Kiss of
Death". Just more Pimp-Ho wars with people ganking people *again*.
The problem is that simple, you need a secure zone and OSI with or w/o Raph
still haven't figured it out. They still think getting your Ho ganked by 5
Pimps at a bank is feature that will attract customers. They aren't the
brightest stars in the heavens there.
> Also for an Online Marketing Manager - "Responsible for planning and
> implementing all marketing activities in relation to ... customer
acquisition
> and retention programs...".
>
> Maybe that's the problem, they don't have anyone responsible for customer
> retention! A big suit. Someone important, with a big office that has
> windows. Someone to say, "Don't say mean things to the customers. That's
a
> bad thing to do." So they can all say, "Oh. I did not know that. You
learn
> that stuff by majoring in business and/or marketting? Wow."
Been there done that, they don't say the "Wow" part, they say, "I get it,
say mean things behind their back and just treat them like shit so you keep
it a secret!". They never get it, they never will get it. Cows will be
programming VCR before they get it.
Heck, several hundred people would buy the game if you got the job. Of
course after a 6 months to a year in the position you would become "Bitter
Dundee" so it probably wouldn't be worth it. Be kind of cool listening to
you rant about customers though. I think you could do a much better job at
it then Ironwill . Heck, I would subscribe to a newsletter "Dundee on Why
Customers Suk".<grin>
> > : 'known quantity' I mean they announce they have hired Tyrant or one of
the
> > : admins from EQ who took an active role in keeping that game clean.
> >
> > God I hope not :)
>
> Hrm... I'm not sure what they could ever do to make their consumers happy.
> Classes-n-levels. Ugh.
I kind of lay that one on Brad/design vs CS. Not sure of all the reasons for
it, like they have a licence or something.
It is one of those "Eat garbage, 1 million flies can't be wrong" kind of
things.
I have to admit I have a tendancy to pander. If I were king, I would have
both Raph and Josh giving me input on game design. I would have 20 servers
with what Josh thinks is "kewl" and one that Raph designed so I would have a
place to go while raking in the dough. I am really out of touch with the
"kewl" crowd where kewl => ~<15 years old: They are the emerging market.
Dundee
wrote:
> I could sum it up and I think you would get it. Basically you need a secure
> place to store yourself and your crap, then you buy some black sandals.
Heh.
> OSI still doesn't get it what with fractions and town take overs type stuff.
> You shouldn't be able to take over towns *EVER*, just the "happy hunting
> grounds" is the ticket.
I never did understand the reasoning behind allowing guildfighting and O/C
wars in towns.
> I've been to factions on TC and I will give it the "Rick Cortese Kiss of
> Death". Just more Pimp-Ho wars with people ganking people *again*.
But different KINDS of Pimps and Ho's!
> The problem is that simple, you need a secure zone and OSI with or w/o Raph
> still haven't figured it out. They still think getting your Ho ganked by 5
> Pimps at a bank is feature that will attract customers. They aren't the
> brightest stars in the heavens there.
You seem bitter. :P
I liked the ideas Raph was discussing here a moon or so ago, where a
community of people could establish their territory and it *would* be secure
- the ability for the community to ban people (or maybe even other
communities) from their territory, just like individuals can ban individuals
from houses in UO now. Seems the big difference is in treating the players
as groups, or treating them as individuals (and in having a world large
enough to accomodate massess of people being banned from massive parts of
it).
Your house in UO is secure, even if the bank isn't (and everyone has a house,
right?).
> Been there done that, they don't say the "Wow" part, they say, "I get it,
> say mean things behind their back and just treat them like shit so you keep
> it a secret!". They never get it, they never will get it. Cows will be
> programming VCR before they get it.
Yep, bitter. Definitely bitter.
> Heck, several hundred people would buy the game if you got the job. Of
> course after a 6 months to a year in the position you would become "Bitter
> Dundee" so it probably wouldn't be worth it.
Customer Service stuff? I'd be Bitter Dundee in a day and half. Give or
take a day.
> Be kind of cool listening to you rant about customers though. I think you
> could do a much better job at it then Ironwill . Heck, I would subscribe
> to a newsletter "Dundee on Why Customers Suk".<grin>
Oh heck, I could do that for free.
> I kind of lay that one on Brad/design vs CS. Not sure of all the reasons for
> it, like they have a licence or something.
I blame Michael Seifert, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt, Sebastian Hammer, Tom Madsen
and Katja Nyboe.
> I have to admit I have a tendancy to pander. If I were king, I would have
> both Raph and Josh giving me input on game design. I would have 20 servers
> with what Josh thinks is "kewl" and one that Raph designed so I would have a
> place to go while raking in the dough. I am really out of touch with the
> "kewl" crowd where kewl => ~<15 years old: They are the emerging market.
To pander? Ah... you have a tendency to be cynical. Worse than me.
'Shouldn't design games for 15 year olds, though. They'll play the game
anyway, if you design it for adults, and so will adults. But if you design
it for kids, then you run the risk of making a game that adults won't play,
and kids won't either. q.v. AD&D 2nd Edition.
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
gen...@hexdump.org
: Whenever one group gets too powerful the others tend to ally against
: them, perpetuating a sort of natural equilibrium which doesn't jive with
: your claim that "everyone joins the winning side..."
This was from my lurking the GC board up until a month or so back. From
the context there, it sounded like everyone in the anti-GC alliance was
pretty much gone and that no one was really around except the die-hards.
Yuri G.
>
> This was from my lurking the GC board up until a month or so back.
> From the context there, it sounded like everyone in the anti-GC
> alliance was pretty much gone and that no one was really around except
> the die-hards.
*smirks*
You a bright guy, Jeff, you should know better than to believe
everything you read... Especially if you read it on the GC board. 8)
The shard's population has been dwindling steadily but that really has
nothing to do with the whole alliance thing, the real factors there are
SP's intrinsic design flaws (ROT is too slow, player-run vendors aren't
economically feasible, etc.) combined with the general unpopularity of
the UO:R PvP changes and widespread feelings of neglect and abandonment
on the part of a playerbase which has been repeatedly hung out to dry by
the dev team. The emphasis on politics and alliances is one of the few
areas where SP was an unqualified success IMO.
gen...@hexdump.org
: You a bright guy, Jeff, you should know better than to believe
: everything you read... Especially if you read it on the GC board. 8)
Believe me, I don't :) Especially when it comes from GC themselves. This
was mostly based on the comments from the "other people" from whatever
that big alliance was. *shrugs* I'll take your word for it though. I
dunno - I still don't see that crew as looking for PVP as much as
PK/Crushing .... and I don't know if SB will *really* be suited to them.
Otara
>Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
>: If they're dumb enough to actively cannibalise a perfectly good
>: moneymaking product of their own, thats their loss.
>
>Well, look at it this way tho - I could see EA assuming that every UO1
>player would want to play UO2, given enough 'push' .... that being said,
>why would they want to devote a lot of development money to UO1? I dunno,
>I just don't see them adding a whole lot to UO1. But who knows.
All they'd be doing is shifting a paying player around and UO has to
be a lot cheaper to run now that its so established - I bet they make
more marginwise with a mature product, you usually do.
Now having an easy transfer into UO2 makes sense for those who do
leave, but if they make it too easy they're just killing off a golden
goose.
>Hah :) I'd wager that has a lot to do w/ the local server -> It *is* a
>whole lot more entertaining when your ping is less than 500 :) While I
>don't like switches, I *really* don't like the ability to cross back and
>forth between the lands at will ..... too many people live off the fat of
>the land in err, whichever is PVP- and then hop on overwhen they feel lik
>having a spot o' fun. Blah.
I didnt do any sort of PvP until Trammel started. I also dont PvP
outside of scripted RP wars or practise. But a 35ms ping has made me
somewhat more competitive in them ;).
>: I'm shocked :).
>
>Heh :) At least I didn't say Shadowbane, eh? :) Actually, AO has a
>system that is pretty much spot on with how I'd want things in how it
>deals with PK (IE it is geographically based, but not the black/white that
>UO had (city -> nothing. Out of city -> anything), rather it is a scaling
>system based on how civilized the area is (and in the truly dead zones,
>anything goes). Apparently, a fully rich play experience can be had in
>the areas where you're at least "mostly safe" - although certain quests,
>items, etc are only going to be found out in the wildlands (which I agree
>with - I don't like how UO now has *everything* available to those who
>aren't risking much).
Yeah well waste of time to anyone who doesnt at least have an adequate
ping I'd bet. My impression is that lots of the more PvP focussed
games coming out are going to be pretty pointless to play until theres
a local server.
>I also like how they're driving it with a closed ended plot line -> even
>tho that means that the game has a max lifespan, i think it is neat. The
>story line behind it as well, while simplistic, is one that is definitely
>workable and most people can easily identify with. Hopefully it takes
>off.
Wellll, sequels are _always_ possible so I dont put too much stock in
that - look how often they've done that in the movie world :)
Otara
Otara
wrote:
>I was under the impression that OSI's customer service has actually improved
>lately, whereas Verant has Milo saying things like "Shut up little man and
>pay me my $10" on a company website, and Abashi threatening to nerf
>"features" in order to shut people up. IIRC, the worst OSI ever did in that
>regard was when Ironwill said he hated the test-center users (paraphrased).
'Thankful'?
>Last I heard, Raph's opinion was that PvP thieving ought to just be removed
>from the game.
Have to wait and see :).
>I'm curious how the Hierarchy of Needs translates to an online environment.
>Food, clothing, shelter? Don't need food (unless you're superstitious
>regarding skill gain), seems a lot of people don't *want* clothing. And
>shelter... well! You can't move through the forest without bumping into
>someone's shelter.
'Fun'. First and foremost a game has to be fun or at least
'stimulating'. The world comes after.
>I'm going to buy the first game that I can DANCE in. That's a much more
>important feature than housing, guild warfare, mounts, and so on.
Ooooh sarcasm.
Otara
Otara
>want equal competition against viable PvPers.
So true. We had hordes of PvPers chomping at the bit to PvP us Rpers
because we we had some prtty big wars going. A more transparent
desire to wipe the floor with people who dont PvP much I have not
seen.
They just didnt seem to get that its an 'also' with us - we're beer
and pretzel PvPers :). They said things like 'it will make you much
better PvPers' and other things like that - like they were doing us a
favour. Went down realllly well.
Anyhow a few of the ones who got it a bit more are trying, but I'm
sure you can guess how easy the nogotiations have been :).
>Furthermore, the whole "alliance building" thing doesn't really work -
>look at SP. No one likes being on the losing side, so eventually everyone
>joins the winning side except a few die-hards. Then it all sort of
>implodes.
We recently had a council meeting about rearranging the sides because
one side was doing too well.
How you'd build that into the game I do not know.
Otara
Otara
>Dundee <Dun...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
>: From what I understand, the Shadowbane folk intend on stepping in to help out
>: the underdogs, just to keep that from happening.
>
>And the d00ds everywhere will cry foul when that happens .....
I would too. Ever been to one of those laser tag places where the guy
who works there joins in and wipes all of you because he works there
40 hrs a week.?
Didnt add to the game much in my experience, particualrly when you're
winning.
>I dunno. I mean, the system should/could/would *work* and work well (for
>instance, the point that you raise). I just don't see it being the d00dly
>utopia that they're making it out to be. I don't think that it will
>*really* be the nectar of the gods that the d00dz think it is.
Doesnt really matter for the first 6 months if they all go there.
Otara
Otara
wrote:
>Are there many grief-players in Quake?
Err - yes?
Otara
gil
>
> gen...@hexdump.org wrote:
> >
> > This was from my lurking the GC board up until a month or so back.
> > From the context there, it sounded like everyone in the anti-GC
> > alliance was pretty much gone and that no one was really around except
> > the die-hards.
>
> *smirks*
>
> everything you read... Especially if you read it on the GC board. 8)
My take, as a disinterested observer, was that the core GC attracted a
lot of the bootlickers and bottom-feeders who flock to whoever they
perceive to be the strongest. This gave GC a horrible reputation, which
added to their "we're here to rule the shard" crap, caused just about
everyone else to ally against them. They got their butts kicked
(generally speaking) which didn't go well with folks who want to be the
Grand Poobahs of pvp, and with the bottom-feeders who started to melt
away because the going got tough. The "post-Ren pvp sux so we quit"
line GC uses, while true, was mostly a face-saving way for them to bow
out (the old "declare victory and leave" gambit). The GC that are left
seem to be pretty good joes, and seem to have finally found a
"productive" place in the shard.
Like I said, I'm just a disinterested observer, so may have it wrong.
> The shard's population has been dwindling steadily but that really has
> nothing to do with the whole alliance thing, the real factors there are
> SP's intrinsic design flaws (ROT is too slow, player-run vendors aren't
> economically feasible, etc.) combined with the general unpopularity of
> the UO:R PvP changes and widespread feelings of neglect and abandonment
> on the part of a playerbase which has been repeatedly hung out to dry by
> the dev team. The emphasis on politics and alliances is one of the few
> areas where SP was an unqualified success IMO.
I don't see the politics of SP on any other shard. For all SP's
problems, it's the one shard I consider a success as far as
politics/alliances, and holding folks responsible for their behavior
goes. Seeing the DTM-led Counter Force wrest control of Shame from GC,
in what? 2 weeks or so, was really something. While GC may claim they
out-lasted CF, my read is that CF fell apart because their purpose of
doing to GC what GC did to the shard was accomplished, so they disbanded
as they intended to do when their mission was accomplished. I've never
seen "player policing" be so successful on the regular shards. I take
it from your posts Yuri that you're still proud of the good start OGD
had on the first SP start, but I think you should be more proud of the
DTM-inspired CF action (but I've been wrong before ;).
gil
Yuri G.
>
>My take, as a disinterested observer, was that the core GC attracted a
>lot of the bootlickers and bottom-feeders who flock to whoever they
>perceive to be the strongest. This gave GC a horrible reputation, which
>added to their "we're here to rule the shard" crap, caused just about
>everyone else to ally against them. They got their butts kicked
>(generally speaking) which didn't go well with folks who want to be the
>Grand Poobahs of pvp, and with the bottom-feeders who started to melt
>away because the going got tough. The "post-Ren pvp sux so we quit"
>line GC uses, while true, was mostly a face-saving way for them to bow
>out (the old "declare victory and leave" gambit). The GC that are left
>seem to be pretty good joes, and seem to have finally found a
>"productive" place in the shard.
>
>Like I said, I'm just a disinterested observer, so may have it wrong.
Fairly accurate, I suppose. Being a naturally charitable sort I'd
give more credence to the complaints about UO:R PvP many of their old
crew expressed as they left. It's not like that was the first time
they got whipped. GC got their teeth kicked in pretty good when they
were first starting out, UDL have historically excelled at laying the
smack down rather heavily on everyone who starts out fighting with
underdeveloped characters, and GC was no exception. All part of the
wonderful UDL roleplaying experience, you understand...
Most of the alliances on SP were forged from necessity, first against
UDL, later GC. OGD allied with CE/TOM early in order to deal with UDL,
who had larger squads with more fully developed characters. Later we
allied with FjP for same reason. That developed into the GC alliance,
as they needed help from developed characters to fight UDL. Meanwhile,
CE/TOM/VJ went over to the light side to form the backbone of the
Counter-Force, their anti alliance with BiH, DC, BLD, KGB, and a dozen
smaller guilds. Once GC got their characters built we turned the tide
against UDL, so they in turn allied with the ShadowClan orcs in order
to pad out their numbers with rabid hordes of gimps.
The one exception for us didn't come until later, the DTM alliance
with the Imperium. Not that they weren't a huge help, we had a lot of
newb characters ourselves at the time, but the alliance wasn't driven
by necessity, it was made purely for the sake of the PvP aesthetic
embraced by both groups. Great folks, the Imps. 8)
>I don't see the politics of SP on any other shard. For all SP's
>problems, it's the one shard I consider a success as far as
>politics/alliances, and holding folks responsible for their behavior
>goes. Seeing the DTM-led Counter Force wrest control of Shame from GC,
>in what? 2 weeks or so, was really something.
Ugh, don't call it Counter-Force. We were the SLA. 8)
And it didn't really take two weeks, we did it overnight. The SLA
debuted the night before UO:R patch, we wanted to ruin the last night
of tank mage supremacy for GC and it turned into a damn good night for
us, several decisive victories and quite a bit of Shame gold banked on
the side.
> While GC may claim they
>out-lasted CF, my read is that CF fell apart because their purpose of
>doing to GC what GC did to the shard was accomplished, so they disbanded
>as they intended to do when their mission was accomplished. I've never
>seen "player policing" be so successful on the regular shards.
You've really gotta stop calling us CF. 8( The real CF was never
quite so successful, although they did manage to pull off a few big
wins over us. They usually had a numbers advantage as well as wyrms
and dragons, so that helped.
>I take
>it from your posts Yuri that you're still proud of the good start OGD
>had on the first SP start, but I think you should be more proud of the
>DTM-inspired CF action (but I've been wrong before ;).
I go back to DTM I on Sonoma when I'm in the mood for chest thumping.
We were a no-Recall Chaos guild, only one I've ever heard of. We were
doing without Recall as a self-imposed limitation months before the dev
team introduced SP as the no-Recall shard.
The politics behind all of the SLA stuff were hellish and in a lot of
ways it led to the demise of DTM II. But it was our best option at the
time. I'm having much more fun now as GM of DTM III, just a small group
of friends, no tards, no headaches, no internal BS. So much better that
way...
Mocker, DTM
Yuri G.
>
>Believe me, I don't :) Especially when it comes from GC themselves. This
>was mostly based on the comments from the "other people" from whatever
>that big alliance was. *shrugs* I'll take your word for it though. I
>dunno - I still don't see that crew as looking for PVP as much as
>PK/Crushing .... and I don't know if SB will *really* be suited to them.
GC did have a Chaos stone on LS, they had something of a mixed PvP/PK
background. On SP they had some gamers and some lamers. Most of the
straight-up PK guilds which hit SP never amounted to anything, MDK, J-D,
409, etc. The guilds which survived and succeeded (as GC did for quite
some time) mostly came to the shard with a heavy Order/Chaos background.
Mocker, DTM
gen...@hexdump.org
: All they'd be doing is shifting a paying player around and UO has to
: be a lot cheaper to run now that its so established - I bet they make
: more marginwise with a mature product, you usually do.
True ....
: Yeah well waste of time to anyone who doesnt at least have an adequate
: ping I'd bet. My impression is that lots of the more PvP focussed
: games coming out are going to be pretty pointless to play until theres
: a local server.
Depends on how well iti s implemented. They're claiming that one doens't
by any means have to be a "combat type", ever. Of course, UO claimed that
as well. But with the social structures being planned out, it seems like
the game will have a bit more in the way of "form" to it (ie - unlike UO
where everyone pretty much had to do the same sorta stuff)
gen...@hexdump.org
: We recently had a council meeting about rearranging the sides because
: one side was doing too well.
: How you'd build that into the game I do not know.
In my experience from MU* type games, and Shadowbane claims to do the same
thing - is that the admin staff helps out the losing side in some
manner. In a lot of the Battletech MU* games I played, that would
generally mean the losing side just got some shit hot mechs, or what have
you.
Of course, then that usually led to cries of GM favoritism ...
gen...@hexdump.org
: My take, as a disinterested observer, was that the core GC attracted a
: lot of the bootlickers and bottom-feeders who flock to whoever they
: perceive to be the strongest. This gave GC a horrible reputation, which
: added to their "we're here to rule the shard" crap, caused just about
: everyone else to ally against them. They got their butts kicked
THat's pretty much how they always have been. THe inner core, in general,
aren't all that bad - but they had the same, as you said, bootlickers that
joined up every other mega guild that LS had to offer over the
ages. Always really irritated me.
: away because the going got tough. The "post-Ren pvp sux so we quit"
: line GC uses, while true, was mostly a face-saving way for them to bow
: out (the old "declare victory and leave" gambit). The GC that are left
That also irritated me. They never could admit any sort of defeat.
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>wars in towns.
Because if you couldn't kill people in town, the trash talk would
never end - and people would hop in to the "safe-zone" all day and
night for safety.
The fewer places someone can hide from a fight the better.
Most of us hate house fighting for the same reason.
Corwin
Otara
>In my experience from MU* type games, and Shadowbane claims to do the same
>thing - is that the admin staff helps out the losing side in some
>manner. In a lot of the Battletech MU* games I played, that would
>generally mean the losing side just got some shit hot mechs, or what have
>you.
>
>Of course, then that usually led to cries of GM favoritism ...
Wll it does sort of make winning feel a little pointless doesnt it?
Think I partly answered that one in another post. Clumsy way to fix
it IMO.
Otara
Rick Cortese
> I liked the ideas Raph was discussing here a moon or so ago, where a
> community of people could establish their territory and it *would* be
secure
> - the ability for the community to ban people (or maybe even other
> communities) from their territory, just like individuals can ban
individuals
> from houses in UO now. Seems the big difference is in treating the
players
> as groups, or treating them as individuals (and in having a world large
> enough to accomodate massess of people being banned from massive parts of
> it).
I think it has to be more then just a banning dynamic to keep it interesting
on a gamemanship level. Levels of privilage maybe. Pimp Masta is KOS by
guards but Pocket Monkey just can't use the bank, the healers in the area
won't rez Crack Ho but will rez Ivana Humpalot<all actual Baja players BTW>.
I mean it is a real drag if right outside the gates of Trinsic there is a
naked PK with a buddy handing him one ash, one silk, and fishing for newbies
with less then 40 hit points. So you 20-30 heavily armed Trinsic Centurians
go out and squash him like a bug, all collecting MCs. PK dewd just runs
inside to the Trinsic healers and get a rez. BFD.
Ditto for town invasions and the latest incarnation of the Pimp-Ho wars.
Stick 20 greater heals, 100 bandages, 40 of each reagent in your Brit bank
box, then invade Moonglow. Soon as you die, just run to the healer and get
rezed followed by a "vendor buy bank guards" and you are ready to keep
going. People don't like rez killing people at healers, but THERE IS A
REASON FOR IT! THIS IS THE REASON! Sheesh!
Since I *think* we have established that all jerks hate each other, keep
something like Buc's Den open so they can enjoy each others company. I mean
the way it is now, they hang out in population centers and their mere
presence has a tendancy to make other players quit, so why not force them
hang out with each other?
>
> Your house in UO is secure, even if the bank isn't (and everyone has a
house,
> right?).
Heck everyone has a house now. But son on Pac still has his house in Felucca
and OSI has really juiced thieves *again*. My son with two of his guildmates
could not kill the thief. Thief got all their weapons and reagents, they
couldn't even get themselves out of the area after he stole their reagents.
Thief had deadly poisoned weapons so eventually I think they had to ban him
and logout because they couldn't cure poison after he snagged their
reagents: No weapons or magic to attack him. Once a thief<I have one right
now of course> has your drake<no Greater Heals or Recall>, they just poison
you until you run out of GCs<if you even have them in the first place> and
health.
OSI also fixed it so you can't heal a poisoned person including yourself w/o
curing poison first. Takes ~15 seconds for a bandage to cure, start another
for health and thief "In Nox" or poisoned weapon^n. If you cast Cure, your
weapon drops into your pack and it is gone ~1 secs later while you are still
doing the casting dance and frozen. Good thief will tab out of combat so he
doesn't interupt your spell and you keep up the dance vs move.
<snip>
> > I kind of lay that one on Brad/design vs CS. Not sure of all the reasons
for
> > it, like they have a licence or something.
>
> I blame Michael Seifert, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt, Sebastian Hammer, Tom
Madsen
> and Katja Nyboe.
Weren't they the ones from the second Star Trek movie?
>
> > I have to admit I have a tendancy to pander. If I were king, I would
have
> > both Raph and Josh giving me input on game design. I would have 20
servers
> > with what Josh thinks is "kewl" and one that Raph designed so I would
have a
> > place to go while raking in the dough. I am really out of touch with the
> > "kewl" crowd where kewl => ~<15 years old: They are the emerging
market.
>
> To pander? Ah... you have a tendency to be cynical. Worse than me.
Actually I wasn't joking here, which makes it kind of funny in retrospect.
Heck, my vendor *sells colored sandals*. Just because I'm cynical doesn't
mean I can't be pragmatic too.
>
> 'Shouldn't design games for 15 year olds, though. They'll play the game
> anyway, if you design it for adults, and so will adults. But if you
design
> it for kids, then you run the risk of making a game that adults won't
play,
> and kids won't either. q.v. AD&D 2nd Edition.
Point taken. Or SP or The Abyss or ... I think there is an Aesop fable about
this one.
Dundee
(WE/LS)) wrote:
> >I never did understand the reasoning behind allowing guildfighting and O/C
> >wars in towns.
>
> Because if you couldn't kill people in town, the trash talk would
> never end - and people would hop in to the "safe-zone" all day and
> night for safety.
If they made it where you couldn't fight in town, so you spent your time
fighting *right next to town* instead, then that would defeat the purpose of
moving fighting out of town.
I guess the problem is there's nothing in particular to fight for, so there's
no where you can be sure of finding an opponent? I mean, takes to long to
find opponents if you have to look for them out in the wilderness, sort of
thing?
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Dundee
> >"features" in order to shut people up. IIRC, the worst OSI ever did in that
> >regard was when Ironwill said he hated the test-center users (paraphrased).
>
> 'Thankful'?
Heh. Oh yeah, how could I forget. :P
> >Last I heard, Raph's opinion was that PvP thieving ought to just be removed
> >from the game.
>
> Have to wait and see :).
Well, his opinion on thievery isn't going to impact what OSI does now.
Didn't they just make it where thieves could snoop while hidden again, or
something goofy like that?
> 'Fun'. First and foremost a game has to be fun or at least
> 'stimulating'. The world comes after.
You don't think UO is fun?
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Dundee
> >And the d00ds everywhere will cry foul when that happens .....
>
> I would too. Ever been to one of those laser tag places where the guy
> who works there joins in and wipes all of you because he works there
> 40 hrs a week.?
>
> Didnt add to the game much in my experience, particualrly when you're
> winning.
If you "win the game" then the game is over. That would be bad.
They do have an obligation to prevent that from happening. Also they're
following a predefined storyline (except the details of just who will be in
what position is up to the players to figure out/fight-for), sort of like a
roleplaying game.
They may have a story board something like:
Scene One: Somesuch guild rises and takes over most of somesuch area (which
guild, which area, they don't know - pretty much guaranteed this will happen
though).
Scene Two: So-n-so the Immortal gives an artifact to the tiny so-n-so guild
so that they can throw off their oppressors (so-n-so guild is To Be
Determined depending on what players happen to be in that position, and
"their oppressors" is the guild from Scene One.
..etc.
Is it "unfair" for GMs to manipulate the story in an RPG?
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Dundee
> Wll it does sort of make winning feel a little pointless doesnt it?
In this sort of game, you can't win.
'Does make it sort of futile. But that's why a game "all about war" doesn't
appeal to me. It's a game "all about a war that no one is allowed to win".
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
gen...@hexdump.org
: Wll it does sort of make winning feel a little pointless doesnt it?
Yup - but it *is* the only way I can think of to ensure that teh game
plays on.
: Think I partly answered that one in another post. Clumsy way to fix
: it IMO.
I read ya loud and clear on that one .... I just don't really see any
other way to handle it than "letting them go ahead and win", and that
ain't good for bidness
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>I guess the problem is there's nothing in particular to fight for, so there's
>no where you can be sure of finding an opponent? I mean, takes to long to
>find opponents if you have to look for them out in the wilderness, sort of
>thing?
That's definiately a problem. Part of the O/C crowd is gating all over
from place to place looking for other people to fight -or- gank as
appropriate. Other groups may be less mobile and tend to hang out
where they can rez or resupply easy or just meet friends. And that
could be houses or banks.
Dungeons used to be very popular fighting zones, but the monster AI is
just too annoying, noone needs the money, and the general emptiness
knocks out the side benefits for those groups who prefer to npk and
loot, etc...
Personally I doubt "fighting" over something will help much. Either
the something will be unguarded and easily taken, or the attackers
will scout first and not attack unless they have overwhelming odds, or
the defenders will park 57 dragons around the sigil creating a
ridiculous fire base.
Large battles become gross-lagfests in UO. The best battles are the
smaller ones.
But it's hard to predict what will happen as the turnout day to day
and commitment for PvP is extremely variable.
The one thing I know for sure, is factions will in the short-term
create a lot of new targets, and that will be fun for a while.
Corwin
Dundee
(WE/LS)) wrote:
> That's definiately a problem. Part of the O/C crowd is gating all over
> from place to place looking for other people to fight -or- gank as
> appropriate. Other groups may be less mobile and tend to hang out
> where they can rez or resupply easy or just meet friends. And that
> could be houses or banks.
Hrm. I want to put in a decent guildwar system, but I'm not sure how to
address that problem. It'll be even worse with a smaller player-base.
Definitely seems like capture-the-flag or the like would work better with the
smaller playerbase, though - no big battles to lag everyone out on account of
there aren't generally enough people online to make for a big laggy battle.
Most we've ever had online at one time was 50, and kinda doubtful all 50 of
them would be playing war.
> Dungeons used to be very popular fighting zones, but the monster AI is
> just too annoying, noone needs the money, and the general emptiness
> knocks out the side benefits for those groups who prefer to npk and
> loot, etc...
'Think everyone needs money pretty much all the time with skill loss on death
and pay-for-training, but I think our monster AI would be even more annoying
than OSI's.
> Personally I doubt "fighting" over something will help much.
I was thinking more for the geographical point than to acquire/hold
something.
> Either the something will be unguarded and easily taken, or the attackers
> will scout first and not attack unless they have overwhelming odds, or
> the defenders will park 57 dragons around the sigil creating a
> ridiculous fire base.
Doesn't happen that way with banks as the object of your affection?
> Large battles become gross-lagfests in UO. The best battles are the
> smaller ones.
Not a problem.
> The one thing I know for sure, is factions will in the short-term
> create a lot of new targets, and that will be fun for a while.
I'll have to read-up on what their plans are for faction warfare.
'Might just do a system where once you get killed (or killed a certain number
of times), you're booted out of your guild and restricted from rejoining it.
But you could still join a seperate guild. Assuming people can't just plant
a new guildstone after every battle, it'd eventually boil down to two guilds,
and ultimately one would defeat the other.
But that might just lead to a snowball effect where one guild gets huge
quick, wipes out and absorbs every other guild, then waits for a reset so it
can do it again.
'Hard to come up with an objective for the fighting that doesn't result in
the same ol' thing: fighting a war that can't be won for no particular
reason other than to fight.
--
http://home.swbell.net/skeptack/
Otara
wrote:
>> 'Fun'. First and foremost a game has to be fun or at least
>> 'stimulating'. The world comes after.
>
>You don't think UO is fun?
Heh.
Back then? Not so much as it could have been - too much 'immense
frustration is good for you' stuff :).
Otara
Otara
wrote:
>Is it "unfair" for GMs to manipulate the story in an RPG?
No. But directly involving themselves as 'gods' could be - all sorts
of potential problems with that. I'd rather that a side did 'win'
in some way and something got restarted myself.
Otara
gen...@hexdump.org
: No. But directly involving themselves as 'gods' could be - all sorts
: of potential problems with that. I'd rather that a side did 'win'
: in some way and something got restarted myself.
Even in Pencil & Paper type games?
Otara
>Otara <sp...@spammity.com.au> wrote:
>: No. But directly involving themselves as 'gods' could be - all sorts
>: of potential problems with that. I'd rather that a side did 'win'
>: in some way and something got restarted myself.
>
>Even in Pencil & Paper type games?
Eh? Its a subtle difference, but havent you had times where the GM
was playing 'his' character, rather than an NPC?
Like I remember playing a game of Aftermath, post nuclear war jobbie
with GM for first time and we meet some guy who turns up with 2
nuclear powered robots, rilly big gun, battleship tied to his back
etc, etc.
So the GM basically talks to us for the next 10 mins how tough he is,
what wusses we are. My eyes rolled in the back of my head, and I
mentally said sod this, and really said 'I open fire on him as soon as
his back is turned'. The other players eyes bulge and say 'but thats
whateverhis name is' - basically making it clear that the guy is
unkillable because its the GM's pet, so we had to sit there listening
to him burble on until he was tired of it. I really hate that kind of
thing - and no it wasnt the precursor to a scenario or anything, he
sodded off again afterwards and then we went on.
Actually I have a link to something in the same vein that happened in
EQ recently.
http://www.lumthemad.com/news/967604664,55259,.shtml
Otara
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>'Hard to come up with an objective for the fighting that doesn't result in
>the same ol' thing: fighting a war that can't be won for no particular
>reason other than to fight.
That's where you're thinking too hard.
Players are quite capable of coming up with their own reasons to
fight.
But one idea I've heard before which would be more fun than
Sigil-camping online ... would be if each battle that took place each
night had a conclusion (the flag captured) and that resulted in a part
of a city/town/dungeon being taken over.
Perhaps the game could automatically detect how many members of each
faction are online at the moment, and if it detects the appropriate
amount it can auto-announce:
"The Battle for Janey's Tailor Shop will commence in 15minutes!"
oh btw, currently if someone camps the bank with a horde of fighters
or dragons or whatnot - people will just KOP out and avoid them, so
basically it's just not done. If they hit the road, and try to gank
everything they can find - they will once again just find everyone
kop'ing from them.
Unfortunately, the faction system will encourage both of these
behaviours and rewards you if noone shows up to contest you for the
sigil.
Corwin
Dundee
(WE/LS)) wrote:
> But one idea I've heard before which would be more fun than
> Sigil-camping online ... would be if each battle that took place each
> night had a conclusion (the flag captured) and that resulted in a part
> of a city/town/dungeon being taken over.
>
> Perhaps the game could automatically detect how many members of each
> faction are online at the moment, and if it detects the appropriate
> amount it can auto-announce:
Hmm... That's not hard to do at all. What happens when one team has captured
everything and wins every battle because (say) they're twice as large as the
other team(s)? Should it periodically reset?
I don't think this would be an issue on OSI shards, but we're far more likely
to only have two teams (pretty likely for it to be the PvPers vs. the
wanna-be's, too).
Dundee
> Back then? Not so much as it could have been - too much 'immense
> frustration is good for you' stuff :).
You know... I griped a lot about everything in UO back then, especially the
other players, and most especially the Red Tide making it impossible to play
anything but PK/anti-PK... but it wasn't really all that bad. I mean I
complained "This game is all about PK/anti-PK", but I wasn't either one of
them, and lots of people weren't.
People would start a gripe "I banked in britain and went to deceit and ...
[snip tale of woe ] ... this game sucks!" But you know, Just Don't Do That,
Then.
Monster-bashing was limited to non-spawnpoints if you didn't want to
encounter PKs and the spawn was pretty slow, but we'd walk through the woods
of Yew and kill a handful of things. Not the non-stop excitement of pushing
through a crowded dungeon, or even comparable to today's post-stablewipe
spawn, but on the other hand it *felt* a lot more like "hunting", which was
kind of cool. Post-rep, we never hunted again. We could have, but it really
seemed like a waste of time, relative to the amount of critters we could kill
by (say) rolling through Shame, and didn't have the same feel as hunting had
before, what with the spawn being "better".
When the rep' patch went in, the worst problem was with the tank thieves, but
then OSI has always had a problem getting a handle on thieving. From what
I've read here, they still do. The thieves-guild deal put a stop to that.
"Blue PKs" were the next problem, and for a while it seemed like the players
would address that problem themselves. Too late, as OSI was in the mood to
chuck-out the concept of player policing entirely by that point, and put in
the long term counter and pingpong counters.
I was reasonably happy with the game by the time I quit. Even when it was
bad, it was comically bad. The source of a great deal of humor - bonedewd
and platedude for example. TONS of funny stuff in the newsgroup all about "I
did this stupid thing" or "I saw these people do this stupid thing" or "This
thing is stupid." Even reading rants about stupid names was fun, because
some of the stupid names are kind of funny. The rants almost followed a
pattern: "I saw [instert comically stupid name here] and he [instert
annoying thing he did here] so I [instert clever thing here] and he died."
Whata we got now? "I saw a guy with a stupid name, so I ignored him."
It reminds me of a rant by Andrew Rilstone. Speaking of Dr. Who and ending
with:
"And, it a very sad fact that my beloved Doctor Who became perhaps the first
of these post-fan texts. What none of us in the queue had realised in 1983
was that the programme was being produced by a fanboy. We were pleased when
fondly remembered characters from 10 years previously started to re-appear.
We revelled in references to the programme's past: you probably wouldn't
regard the address 76 Totters Lane as particularly significant, which shows
how much *you* know. We were pleased when speeches and sometimes whole
stories were written to explain contradictions and inconsistencies which had
cropped up over the previous 20 years.
In 1989, the BBC celebrated the 26th anniversary of Doctor Who by cancelling
the series. It never restarted. Mysteriously, no-one was watching it
anymore."
I find myself thinking nostalgically about the uo that sucked, sometimes.
If they fix ALL of the problems, what WILL people talk about?
Maybe that's why they let thieves snoop while hidden again.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Eh? Its a subtle difference, but havent you had times where the GM
: was playing 'his' character, rather than an NPC?
I see what you mean, and that always pissed me off too.
: http://www.lumthemad.com/news/967604664,55259,.shtml
Yeah, I saw that. That too, would irritate me. One of the earliest
"seer" things was an incident on LS where two seers were "roleplaying toll
collectors" and were so jacked up that they were really just "killing
people at whim". Was kinda stupid really.
My point was that the GM/admin staff doesn't have to gbe so heavy handed
to "fix the storyline" .... they don't have to show up with an unkillable
being to settle the score. The example I gave before was in the
Battletech MU*'s I played .... generally if one side was getting crushed,
they'd find a cache of spiffy (really good to boot) mechs. First, it was
welcomed cuz all their other mechs would be falling apart, secondly they'd
be welcomed cuz they'd be shit hot. But that wouldn't let them decisivly
win either .... if they were still a bunch of idiots, they could easily
lose. It would just give them enough of an advantage to hopefully even
things out a bit.
Corwin Of Amber (WE/LS)
>Hmm... That's not hard to do at all. What happens when one team has captured
>everything and wins every battle because (say) they're twice as large as the
>other team(s)? Should it periodically reset?
Well, I also think even more control should be bestowed on a group
which takes over a town or a dungeon, and the control should effect
everyone in the game who wants to use that town or dungeon.
The idea is that if an oppresive group takes over a town, that people
will sign up to the rebellion to overthrown them.
The theory being that things balance out on their own, over time.
A group might have fun controlling all the towns, but if they genocide
or assimiliate everyone else on the shard, they are left with noone to
fight. When the fights dry-up, they quit, or switch sides.
Corwin
Dundee
(WE/LS)) wrote:
> Well, I also think even more control should be bestowed on a group
> which takes over a town or a dungeon, and the control should effect
> everyone in the game who wants to use that town or dungeon.
I've thought about having the townstones act as guildstones, as far as combat
highlighting goes. Problem with that is that it turns the entire game into a
wargame - no room for the merchantfolk because they are always going to be
involved in some sort of PvP war, even if the extent of their involvement is
just getting ganked by the enemy army as it rolls into town.
And as you point out, there's no hope for them that the war will ever end.
Even if they figure out, "ok, I'll join these guys and play baker, because
they're kicking everyone's butt" - eventually "these guys" disolve and start
fighting again.
Trying to implement guild warfare along with "killing innocents is bad" sort
of thing. Particularly if the guild warfare is going to be never-ending.
Dungeons though are unlike OSI's a bit. They aren't resources to control and
the monsters are actually dangerous. One of the responsibilities of the
rulers is to protect the town from the dungeons, in fact, and not just from
the other towns. They're more an obstical than an objective, in other words.
I would like to do a full-scale town-warfare type shard someday, but eh...
NWN will be out by then.
I'm betting NWN is going to be really crappy for PvP.
Actually with permanent death, this shard will probably be really crappy for
PvP. :P
gen...@hexdump.org
: wargame - no room for the merchantfolk because they are always going to be
: involved in some sort of PvP war, even if the extent of their involvement is
: just getting ganked by the enemy army as it rolls into town.
That is, however, realistic.
The very first thing I read about UO was an old PC Gamer article from
pre-beta days. The thing that captured my mindshare was a paragraph
talking about how if one was a merchant -> it would be wise not only to
get a caravan to travel with, but to hire guards for the caravan. That
level of player interaction, IMO, would be ideal.
Obviously, on both sides of the coin (those who wish to PvP and those who
don't) things start falling apart: Those who wish to PvP tend to be
drooling idiots about these sorts of things, and those who don't tend to
piss & moan every time they have to step one inch out of the way for the
combat. IMO, the ideal world would be a combination (not a "balance", but
a combination) of both -> its just that the majority of people don't want
a combination, they want one way or the toehr way.
: I'm betting NWN is going to be really crappy for PvP.
Unless those people who are trying to make a persistent MMP version of NWN
manage to succeed, NWN is going to be really crappy overall. I don't dig
these "not-massively multiplayer ORPG" at all.
: Actually with permanent death, this shard will probably be really crappy for
: PvP. :P
Actually I always thought that perma-death would be better for PvP. I
think it would tend to make the normal would-be PKer think twice (not
necessarily in UO terms, but I can envision many other potential games
where they'd be forced to "think twice") and as long as real grief players
can't start causing havoc with throwaway chars, it should be good enough.
Dundee
> Obviously, on both sides of the coin (those who wish to PvP and those who
> don't) things start falling apart: Those who wish to PvP tend to be
> drooling idiots about these sorts of things, and those who don't tend to
> piss & moan every time they have to step one inch out of the way for the
> combat. IMO, the ideal world would be a combination (not a "balance", but
> a combination) of both -> its just that the majority of people don't want
> a combination, they want one way or the toehr way.
I'm proposing it and seeing if I can come up with an idea that both sides
would accept. 'Course we're pretty non-PvP oriented in general, but then the
idea of the shard itself is attracting people who are wanting PvP, so who
knows?
I'm thinking I can add a militia option to the townstones so that a person
can join a town, but then either designate themselves as a civilian or part
of the militia. Militia members == fair game for any town that declares war
on them.
Spoils of war would be the ability to set the tax rate on the stone. 'Can't
be too high, or people stop buying/working/training in that town (in which
case you won't be making any money, so what's the point?). 'Can't be too
low, either (or you won't be making any money, so what's the point?) And
since spending money is how you acquire training, it'd be nice to get a big
chunk of it for nothing (well, for taking over the town, and keeping it safe
for the noncombatants so that they continue to slave-away on your behalf, but
other than that it'd be money for nothing).
Potential downside might be if a big empire conquers all the towns and raises
prices so high that the peasants' lives suck, but if Corwin's right, then it
wouldn't last long anyway, since the Empire would fragment p.d.q.
> : I'm betting NWN is going to be really crappy for PvP.
>
> Unless those people who are trying to make a persistent MMP version of NWN
> manage to succeed, NWN is going to be really crappy overall. I don't dig
> these "not-massively multiplayer ORPG" at all.
I'm pretty keen on the couple-hundred-regulars playerbase size.
But I was thinking it would be crappy for PvP for the same reason that EQ is
crappy for PvP: Huge power difference between lowbies and highbies, and
grossly imbalanced classes at any given level (favoring different classes at
different levels, but always grossly imbalanced).
> : Actually with permanent death, this shard will probably be really crappy for
> : PvP. :P
>
> Actually I always thought that perma-death would be better for PvP. I
> think it would tend to make the normal would-be PKer think twice (not
> necessarily in UO terms, but I can envision many other potential games
> where they'd be forced to "think twice") and as long as real grief players
> can't start causing havoc with throwaway chars, it should be good enough.
Yah, could be. Throwaway characters are hard to come by. Takes a while to
build-up. Even if you have the money to buy a ton of skills off the bat, the
stat advancement takes a while.
gen...@hexdump.org
: I'm proposing it and seeing if I can come up with an idea that both sides
: would accept. 'Course we're pretty non-PvP oriented in general, but then the
: idea of the shard itself is attracting people who are wanting PvP, so who
: knows?
IMO, the real problem is the difference in mentality between the two
players. It is like mixing men & women ... asians & westerners, etc. The
average member of each party simply perceives the world differently than
the average member of the other party - neither is necessarily right or
wrong, but it is the cause of a lot of problems ... they believe they're
speaking the same "language", but in reality they're not.
Most non-PvP types would rather just "play their game" then have to bother
with things like caravan guards and the like. "Why should I have to
bother?" ... On the same token, most PvP types would rather just go out
and fight ... why bother hanging around some boring people? Furthermore,
in the case of caravan guards, it is in the non-PvP person's interest that
they're actually *not* raided (even with guards), whereas for the PvP
oriented guard, they *want* to be raided. Etc etc etc.
This is where I'm thinking permadeath might be useful .... assuming no
"instant escape" mechanism (ala Kal Ort Por) -> The pvp oriented guards
might actually *also* not want trouble, they don't want to die. And, at
the same time, the bandits might not want to bother as much as they also
don't want to die.
But then, that gets back to the problem that this wouldn't satisfy either
the hardcore PvP market or the hardcore PvP- market. Both would just get
pissed off :)
: I'm thinking I can add a militia option to the townstones so that a person
: can join a town, but then either designate themselves as a civilian or part
: of the militia. Militia members == fair game for any town that declares war
: on them.
Not quite to the level of blending that I'd like to see, but it seems a
much better stab at the problem than the other companies are doing (aka
"we give up ... you people go to this room, you people go to that room and
don't talk to each other").
: Potential downside might be if a big empire conquers all the towns and raises
: prices so high that the peasants' lives suck, but if Corwin's right, then it
: wouldn't last long anyway, since the Empire would fragment p.d.q.
Yeah. I tend to agree with all of this.
Although, I can see a lot of the Otara/Dennis/etc nonPvP types (that's not
a barb at you Otara, hehe) simply saying, "Why would I want to
bother? Why not play another game where those people can't affect me at
all?"
: I'm pretty keen on the couple-hundred-regulars playerbase size.
Well, yes and no (as far as I'm concerned). I played in a few
"largish" MU* games that had a couple-hundred-regulars and it worked
okay. But "my ideal" would be a full on world where every "needed" role
was done by a player character. Doubtful that this would ever really
work, but I don't really like NPCs all that much.
Most players would complain about the inconvenience. For instance, go
back to beta UO (or perhaps it was early final) ... the NPC shopkeepers
actually had "hours" in their store. When they weren't in the store, they
would wander about and head towards the inn, etc. First, people bitched
that they traveled hours and hours only to find the shop closed. Deal
with it. Its more realistic, says I. But they want the convenience of
the shopkeep RIGHT NOW DAMMIT!
Then, people got perturbed because the "trying to be realistic" code had
the NPCs wander about sometimes. Can't have that happen. We want them
*nailed down* DAMMIT!
Same thing with the player-run vendors. I'd prefer there to be a store
front where a PC had to man it .... but that wouldn't fly with many
people.
: But I was thinking it would be crappy for PvP for the same reason that EQ is
: crappy for PvP: Huge power difference between lowbies and highbies, and
: grossly imbalanced classes at any given level (favoring different classes at
: different levels, but always grossly imbalanced).
Ayup.
: Yah, could be. Throwaway characters are hard to come by. Takes a while to
: build-up. Even if you have the money to buy a ton of skills off the bat, the
: stat advancement takes a while.
A whole lot of stuff would have to be different than UO for it to work,
but I think it is do-able. The one problem w/ permadeath that I can't see
a "fix" for (but unsure if I think a "fix" is needed) would be huge gank
squads. With enough firepower you know you can take out anyone. The only
potential I can see to limit this is that while you know your side can
"win" -> and that more of them will eat permadeath than you ... it is
always possible that some of your side will eat it too .... if enough of
those peole are worried about that, then the size of the gank squad is
lowered, thus reducing the effectiveness, thus causing more people to be
squeamish, etc. But I dunno if it'd work like that.
Probably just be huge gank squads praying on merchants. But, then the
merchants should've had guards. Etc etc.
Dundee
> Not quite to the level of blending that I'd like to see, but it seems a
> much better stab at the problem than the other companies are doing (aka
> "we give up ... you people go to this room, you people go to that room and
> don't talk to each other").
Heh. Yeah. Ideally the combatants on one side will want to kill the
combatants on the other side. They won't want to kill the merchants, they'll
want to rule them.
Merchant-types need the pvpers (oddly) to keep the npc mobs out of town.
Dungeon spawner is funky: It fills up a dungeon from bottom to top, spawns
the woods, then spawns closer to town, then spawns evil mobs right in town
and all the npc merchants go into hiding, effectively shutting down the town.
They also keep the random killers and bandit-type players out of town (npc
guards being somewhat under the town mayor's control).
So, the merchants need the pvpers. Or rather, the non-combatatants need the
combatants.
Tougher is coming up with the other way around. Same problem with having
everyone need a town, but the towns don't particularly need the people (and I
really need for them to, otherwise why not just ban everyone outside of your
guild?). Kind of a kludgy fix for that was to make it where banning too many
people caused your npc merchants to split (in which case you no longer have a
town), but that doesn't *actually* make it where you need the non-combatant
type folk. It just makes it where you can't ban them wholesale.
> Although, I can see a lot of the Otara/Dennis/etc nonPvP types (that's not
> a barb at you Otara, hehe) simply saying, "Why would I want to
> bother? Why not play another game where those people can't affect me at
> all?"
Yeah, but this is the sort of game I'm making. :P I'm not even sure we'll
have too many non-combatant type folk. 'Couple people are interested in
playing merchant - and just that - because of the no-mule nature of the
shard, but that's only a couple of people, and they understand all that goes
with it.
> okay. But "my ideal" would be a full on world where every "needed" role
> was done by a player character. Doubtful that this would ever really
> work, but I don't really like NPCs all that much.
I don't either. I'd rather do a sci-fi game and make all the npcs robots,
since they act like robots anyway. Boring, tedius, stupid job that needs to
be done? Get a 'bot to do it. Unlikely anyone wants to play janitor anyway
(or if they do, then they can play Chief Janitor and be in charge of all the
janitor-bots).
> Most players would complain about the inconvenience. For instance, go
> back to beta UO (or perhaps it was early final) ... the NPC shopkeepers
Yeah, unfortunately I don't have art for vending machines in UO.
> A whole lot of stuff would have to be different than UO for it to work,
> but I think it is do-able. The one problem w/ permadeath that I can't see
> a "fix" for (but unsure if I think a "fix" is needed) would be huge gank
> squads.
Smaller player-base. Couldn't be too many of them.
Ah, another aspect of the divided-empire scenerio - in order to take over a
town you do have to take at least one person off your townstone and put them
on the one you just conquered. He can declare his new town's fealty to your
town, but I'm thinking what would happen would be that several of your folk
would join the new townstone, and declare fealty to their old town, but as
soon as the enemies started drying up, someone somewhere is going to
un-declare fealty and start all over. Maybe even a few towns all at once,
civil war sort of thing.
> Probably just be huge gank squads praying on merchants. But, then the
> merchants should've had guards. Etc etc.
That's no way to win a war. Hearts and minds of the people, and all that. :P
Otara
>My point was that the GM/admin staff doesn't have to gbe so heavy handed
>to "fix the storyline" .... they don't have to show up with an unkillable
>being to settle the score. The example I gave before was in the
>Battletech MU*'s I played .... generally if one side was getting crushed,
>they'd find a cache of spiffy (really good to boot) mechs. First, it was
>welcomed cuz all their other mechs would be falling apart, secondly they'd
>be welcomed cuz they'd be shit hot. But that wouldn't let them decisivly
>win either .... if they were still a bunch of idiots, they could easily
>lose. It would just give them enough of an advantage to hopefully even
>things out a bit.
Yeah if its done well. Big if tho. No favouritism, nor even an
_impression_ of favouritism, no powergaming, etc. Pretty tricky IMO.
Otara
Otara
wrote:
>People would start a gripe "I banked in britain and went to deceit and ...
>[snip tale of woe ] ... this game sucks!" But you know, Just Don't Do That,
>Then.
Ah cmon - Dundee saying 'dont leave town'? Anyhow I wasnt only
talking about PK's. Anyone who didnt macro was faced with some pretty
silly challenges skillwise at times. I'll never forget my first
attempt at mining. EQ seems to have this philosophy in spades too.
>I was reasonably happy with the game by the time I quit. Even when it was
>bad, it was comically bad. The source of a great deal of humor - bonedewd
>and platedude for example. TONS of funny stuff in the newsgroup all about "I
>did this stupid thing" or "I saw these people do this stupid thing" or "This
>thing is stupid." Even reading rants about stupid names was fun, because
>some of the stupid names are kind of funny. The rants almost followed a
>pattern: "I saw [instert comically stupid name here] and he [instert
>annoying thing he did here] so I [instert clever thing here] and he died."
>Whata we got now? "I saw a guy with a stupid name, so I ignored him."
Yeah I always saw that as a marketing thing myself. People were a lot
more willing to read funny rants than just rants.
>"And, it a very sad fact that my beloved Doctor Who became perhaps the first
>of these post-fan texts. What none of us in the queue had realised in 1983
>was that the programme was being produced by a fanboy. We were pleased when
>fondly remembered characters from 10 years previously started to re-appear.
>We revelled in references to the programme's past: you probably wouldn't
>regard the address 76 Totters Lane as particularly significant, which shows
>how much *you* know. We were pleased when speeches and sometimes whole
>stories were written to explain contradictions and inconsistencies which had
>cropped up over the previous 20 years.
Sure - but thats more about making a game that appeals to a very
small minority. I'd argue more that thats what UO _was_.
>I find myself thinking nostalgically about the uo that sucked, sometimes.
Well thats nostalgia for you :). Happens to me too sometimes - ah my
first multi-thief ripoff. My first house lost to a thief getting my
friend guardkilled. My first time getting killed by a PK 15 minutes
into the game.
I do wonder how I might have viewed some of the shenanigans if there
had been less outright cheating and a better ping.
>If they fix ALL of the problems, what WILL people talk about?
Well thats the theory behind AC isnt? Theres not enough going wrong so
noone talks about it.
>Maybe that's why they let thieves snoop while hidden again.
Just umm, a moby dick kinda thing I think. Or a motif, not sure
which.
Otara
Otara
>pre-beta days. The thing that captured my mindshare was a paragraph
>talking about how if one was a merchant -> it would be wise not only to
>get a caravan to travel with, but to hire guards for the caravan. That
>level of player interaction, IMO, would be ideal.
Guess what our last RP battle was based on?
Otara
Otara
>Although, I can see a lot of the Otara/Dennis/etc nonPvP types (that's not
>a barb at you Otara, hehe) simply saying, "Why would I want to
>bother? Why not play another game where those people can't affect me at
>all?"
Ironically enough, the Feluccan PvP players _have_ been asking to join
in on our RP wars on Trammel for various reasons. Some Rpers asked
exactly that question.
I've actually been one of the people trying to help make it happen,
but as you say the different worldviews are making it, umm,
interesting.
Otara
Dundee
> >People would start a gripe "I banked in britain and went to deceit and ...
> >[snip tale of woe ] ... this game sucks!" But you know, Just Don't Do That,
> >Then.
>
> Ah cmon - Dundee saying 'dont leave town'?
Not at all, but Brit' bank and Deceit were the dewd-centers of the universe
on every shard. So if you didn't like dewds...
Point is you couldn't judge the entire game based on a couple of
jerkazoid-hotspots.
> Anyhow I wasnt only talking about PK's.
Well there weren't any at Brit' bank. Just 90% of the morons.
> Anyone who didnt macro was faced with some pretty
> silly challenges skillwise at times.
Yeah, but macroing was Nice And Legal back then. Sort of appealing in a way.
In the same way that leaving sim-city running all night and then getting up
in the morning to see how you did was appealing.
> I'll never forget my first attempt at mining. EQ seems to have this philosophy in spades too.
Heh. UOAssist. It's not so bad. :-)
> Sure - but thats more about making a game that appeals to a very
> small minority. I'd argue more that thats what UO _was_.
True.
> >I find myself thinking nostalgically about the uo that sucked, sometimes.
>
> Well thats nostalgia for you :). Happens to me too sometimes - ah my
> first multi-thief ripoff. My first house lost to a thief getting my
> friend guardkilled. My first time getting killed by a PK 15 minutes
> into the game.
Brings a tear to my eye. The good ol' days.
> >If they fix ALL of the problems, what WILL people talk about?
>
> Well thats the theory behind AC isnt? Theres not enough going wrong so
> noone talks about it.
Heh. Hadn't thought about that. Geez, you'd think they'd get a clue. It
seems so obvious.
They need a good scandal. Bill Gates running around with hacked stats or
something. Or they could put in a tradewindow, so that people could do
tradewindow scams.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Heh. Yeah. Ideally the combatants on one side will want to kill the
: combatants on the other side. They won't want to kill the merchants, they'll
: want to rule them.
As long as the merchant types don't mind being ruled. Even given your
"merchants needing pvpers" scenerio you described, I could still see the
merchant-types being irritated in general by having to need the pvpers in
the first place (see the monster spawns in UO towns. More people got
pissed off that they were ganked by monsters at banks and such than I've
ever seen anywhere. However, I doubt their first reaction was "Wish there
were more warriors about to take care of them!" rather "God damned OSI")
: Smaller player-base. Couldn't be too many of them.
True.
: soon as the enemies started drying up, someone somewhere is going to
: un-declare fealty and start all over. Maybe even a few towns all at once,
: civil war sort of thing.
Yup. Eventually someone, somewhere will get pissed off and revolt.
Especially if politics come in to play.
: That's no way to win a war. Hearts and minds of the people, and all that. :P
Heh :)
gen...@hexdump.org
: I do wonder how I might have viewed some of the shenanigans if there
: had been less outright cheating and a better ping.
I've often wondered this. If the drooling idiot d00d I R0x cheater type
of person hadn't been the one who was automatically attracted to the
wonderful character archetype of "PK", if people in general wouldn't have
a better opinion of such players.
I remember back in early beta days, outside of a few *die hards* who
absofreakinglutely did not like the idea of PKs ... most people saw them
as "an enemy" but not a blight on the land, like they became thought
of. IE, people passed around the names of the PKs, and would tend to band
together to go fight them -> but you didn't hear the "fukn PKsSuK" kinda
banter that went on later.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Yeah if its done well. Big if tho. No favouritism, nor even an
: _impression_ of favouritism, no powergaming, etc. Pretty tricky IMO.
The accusations of favourtism started coming in tho, cuz every time one
side figured out that the other was "helped", they'd start crying that the
other side didn't *really* need the help at all ....
gen...@hexdump.org
: Guess what our last RP battle was based on?
Yeah, but I'm also guessing that it was entirely pre-determined (okay,
we're going to have a caravan going from A to B. Somewhere in between,
you bad guys come and attack us!) ...
One of the reasons I like the concept of MMPORPGs is that there are so
many players and that makes it unpredictable. I'd rather not have a clue
if my caravan was going to get jumped, furthermore, not have a clue by how
many, what kind, etc.
gen...@hexdump.org
: Ironically enough, the Feluccan PvP players _have_ been asking to join
: in on our RP wars on Trammel for various reasons. Some Rpers asked
: exactly that question.
I can totally picture it -> especially with the more "enlightened" PvP
types. Especially with them. The DyperCrap, BuTtMoNKey .... those
types, I don't really see ever joining in -> just as there are nonPvP
types that I can see *never* wanting to even see a hint that PvP exists in
their game. They're the extreme ends tho.
: I've actually been one of the people trying to help make it happen,
: but as you say the different worldviews are making it, umm,
: interesting.
Yeah ... I think part of the problem is a lot of the RP/NoPvP type people
have had their feelings smashed in so many times by the hordes of drooling
idiots that they feel the need to "get back" at the PvPers, and don't want
to let them in on anything. Witness all the "haha you PKs suck my
dick!" posts when Trammel was announced.
Maxi Rose
<gen...@hexdump.org> wrote:
8< SNIP! >8
>Although, I can see a lot of the Otara/Dennis/etc nonPvP types (that's not
>a barb at you Otara, hehe) simply saying, "Why would I want to
>bother? Why not play another game where those people can't affect me at
>all?"
That's why Dundee's discussing it here, pre-build, and thinking up ways to
designate it for advertisement. Deliberately attract those interested. Don't
fool the "Otaras" of the world into thinking they won't get attacked when
they go out, and if they don't like the scenario/theme, the Otaras, the
people with differing opinions but enough common decency not to be an ass
about it, won't waste anyone's time trying to play only to get peeved.
8< SNIP! >8
>Most players would complain about the inconvenience. For instance, go
>back to beta UO (or perhaps it was early final) ... the NPC shopkeepers
>actually had "hours" in their store. When they weren't in the store, they
>would wander about and head towards the inn, etc. First, people bitched
>that they traveled hours and hours only to find the shop closed. Deal
>with it. Its more realistic, says I. But they want the convenience of
>the shopkeep RIGHT NOW DAMMIT!
>
>Then, people got perturbed because the "trying to be realistic" code had
>the NPCs wander about sometimes. Can't have that happen. We want them
>*nailed down* DAMMIT!
>
>Same thing with the player-run vendors. I'd prefer there to be a store
>front where a PC had to man it .... but that wouldn't fly with many
>people.
The major reason this change was implemented is due to people playing the
game were sometimes in wildly varying timezones, like early on when
Australians/New Zealanders, English, Japanese, etc. for got their mits on
the game, they had to play on the shard closest to them. And at odd hours,
compared to the "native inhabitants". As well, some people just had bad
work schedules. Can you imagine if PC shops tended to mostly be open between
6pm ans 11pm, and you were only able to log in betwee 1am and 5am?
What if NPC shops followed a similar schedule? Would people stuck at odd
hours never get to shop? They made the shop changes in order to ensure
everyone who wanted/needed to shop, could. This is a game, for Christ's
sake. We should not be planning our little lives around when the shops
open and close. In a "Rogue-like" ascii map-based game called Moria, the
shops did indeed also have hours of operation. What made it manageable was
the wait times between opening and closing were relatively small, so you
didn't have to wait past the point of annoyance to go shopping. What
timescale would you set for store hours, if you had control, Jeff? This
is not a barb or slam. This is an honest question. When would shops close
and how often, if you had control?
You did raise some valid questions. I'll be blunt. It's only because I'm
a bit of a sissy do I want shops to stay as they are. If they changed to
your store hours model again, in some sensible fashion, I'd probably enjoy
the added atmosphere and keeping with the supposed fiction. We'd all moan
a bit like human beings do if at some time, our particular shop wasn't open.
"Dammit! The Mage's shop is closed and I need some regs! *grumblegrumble-
trot off and wait `til later*" But I think if it was a sane system, we'd
deal with it like the mature adults we all pretend to be. ;)
--
@}>-`--,-- @}>-`--,-- @}>-`--,-- {{@}} --,--'-<{@ --,--'-<{@ --,--'-<{@
Maxi Rose Ghost of a Texas Lady | Anime: FY, MB, KOR | Bab5, Goth
Maxi the Southern Dragon (UDIC) | Anthropomorphics, Bisexuality, Jim
http://www.vex.net/~teleute | Jim @ http://www.io.com/~jwtlai
Otara
>I remember back in early beta days, outside of a few *die hards* who
>absofreakinglutely did not like the idea of PKs ... most people saw them
>as "an enemy" but not a blight on the land, like they became thought
>of. IE, people passed around the names of the PKs, and would tend to band
>together to go fight them -> but you didn't hear the "fukn PKsSuK" kinda
>banter that went on later.
Well these things take time to build up...
Even I initially PvP combat as an eventual challenge I'd build up to.
Eventually I realised it was a challenge I wasnt interested in because
I just didnt like the ways most people were doing it (ie gankcity) -
problem was I still had to be involved in it.
Otara