Page 1 of 2
What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:20 pm
by qbradq
In my opinion UOR's rule set got many things very right, but in the end failed due to a fundamental flaw. I'd love to get the community's input on this opinion.
What UOR Got Right
For PvE'ers
UOR removed many (but not all) of the ways players were able to grief one another without breaking PvM combat. Removal of mobile blocking is a grey topic, as it also removed some of the strategy and tactics in large-scale PvE battles and certain dungeon areas.
Doubling the landmass (and PvE content therein) eased competition for that content.
For PvP'ers
Factions enabled large-scale PvP combat with specific goals without stat loss or other punishment.
For Everyone
Passive gains for secondary skills (eval, anat, etc) was just a good idea all around. Who in their right mind would actually
use Evaluating Intelligence 10,000 times without macroing it?
What UOR Got Wrong
The primary failing of UOR (and in fact of the history of UO development) is that they were still trying to cater to two incompatible play styles on the same server at the same time: PvE / PvP and PKs. Trammel gave players a way to opt-out of being a victim for PK's (for those that chose to be victims in the first place

), but then were given incentives to become victims again by venturing back to Felucca.
I think if the UOR had simply been a change to a PvP and non-PvP server model things would have worked out a lot better. Sure we had SP, but as long as the red PK model existed on other servers and there were plenty of non-PvPers to gank, this style of play was going to stick around. And unfortunately this style of play was persecuted with every expansion, until it became untenable.
Thoughts?
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:24 pm
by UsualSuspect
I enjoyed uo:r. My only character, due to playing on a friends, friends, parents alt account, was a thief on some random shard. My thief was really fun though. townie macing thief, very fun with massive stamina drains and no magic dmg in town. They also fixed npc's and guards thief response. You could have a partial success, get the item, but go grey and still run away and hide(then come back blue and re-attack the person you stole from while they're still grey to you). I wonder if there is a free server as good as UOSA, but with uo:r rules and without trammel?
nope.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:32 pm
by UsualSuspect
OHHH!! POWER HOUR!!! I loved power hour.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:33 pm
by UsualSuspect
OHH OHH, the other house designs were sick too.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:59 pm
by qbradq
Thanks for the constructive feedback folks!
There are a few UOR shards out there, but nothing near the quality or population of UOSA.
I hated Power Hour. It made me feel like I needed to macro during that hour to get the most out of it

Before that I just played the game and didn't really think about my skills too much. I just fought what I could, and then when an area got too easy I just found another.
I too loved the new house designs, especially the Villa and the Small Tower. It was nice that they added a lot more storage in a smaller footprint. That's what a lot of folks really wanted anyway.
Anyone remember tents? I kinda wish they would bring tents back, but with the footprint of a small and ability to ban and lock down and stuff. I think they were very cool thematically.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:49 pm
by Grimnir
My first housing was a tent. Ran a small vendor that sold mainly full sets of bone and feathers/arrows.
Good times.
Until I left the chest unlocked once. Haha.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:42 am
by Vhyx
I only played into UO:R for as long as I did because there wasn't another game out that I wanted to play. As soon as DAOC hit (and I had a computer to run it), I left UO:R and never looked back.
Factions:
Factions were a good idea on paper, but I think wound up hurting PvP more than making it better. Too many people got involved with that system not because they wanted good PvP, but because they wanted the stupid titles and silver. On Great Lakes it was a constant shifting through whichever faction was the current FOTM. Lots of mindless zerging. Those of us that tried to stick with the under populated factions got tired of constantly being steam rolled by the zergtards.
The guild I was in finally got tired of the idiocy of Factions and went back to just warring with guilds we knew would actually put up a good fight.
As far as splitting the plays tyles/doubling land mass etc:
Wrecked the sandbox.
Economy turned into an inflated piece of garbage. Prices for goods, housing and services became completely insane, very rapidly.
Further, I think that the player base started to go to hell with the division. Enter the entitled trammie twits that acted like complete tool-sheds because of no consequences. Even if I hadn't been a hard core PvP junkie back then, I'd of still lived in Felucca simply to stay away from the freaking care bear whiners.
I really believe that the difficult nature of the pre-UO:R game world created higher quality gamers and tighter knit communities. You actually had to put some effort into getting established, and once you did you felt good. You felt good because you could finally hold your own. Making friends was important because there was strength and safety in groups. The game felt like a dynamic place where anything could happen.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:38 pm
by the bazookas
There were some interesting additions in UO:R. Arguably there was some "advances" in PvP, but some steps backwards too.
It's kind of funny... my best UO:R character was a 2x GM (fencing, tactics) 60 stealing char with like 80 magery and like 80 healing and 80 anataomy. with magery and healing, he could easily survive long enough for anybody who attacked him after he stole from them to become grey to him (had to wait a minute or two). Then, with stunning blow, he generally pwned everybody. Then power scrolls came in and any semblance of balance in the game was flushed down the crapper and I sold my account.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:39 pm
by qbradq
Thanks again for all the input. I agree with most of it
My real motivation for posting this was to help me decide if I should stay on this shard, move to a different shard or what.
In the end I did try others (even OSI, it's actually a little better today than in was a few years ago

), and what I discovered is that even with the rough edges, T2A (and this shard) still represent the funnest times I've had with UO, and the most rewarding experiences.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:03 pm
by kevin-theidocghost
your all trammies at heart

Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:17 am
by Derrick
I agree, especially with what they got wrong. I think a big part of the magic of UO was that there were so many different types of players inhabiting the same world.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:31 pm
by Captain Awesome
qbradq wrote:
What UOR Got Wrong
The primary failing of UOR (and in fact of the history of UO development) is that they were still trying to cater to two incompatible play styles on the same server at the same time: PvE / PvP and PKs. Trammel gave players a way to opt-out of being a victim for PK's (for those that chose to be victims in the first place

), but then were given incentives to become victims again by venturing back to Felucca.
I think if the UOR had simply been a change to a PvP and non-PvP server model things would have worked out a lot better. Sure we had SP, but as long as the red PK model existed on other servers and there were plenty of non-PvPers to gank, this style of play was going to stick around. And unfortunately this style of play was persecuted with every expansion, until it became untenable.
Thoughts?
This sums it up perfectly in my opinion. I played and pvp'd in both T2A and UO:R and beyond, for that matter. UO:R was a mechanically sound time in the history of UO, it's just the separation of the player base that gives it such a bad rap. It wasn't perfect, as I believe tank mages went out the window with UO:R, but the rest of the mechanics made up for that.
Having said that, this shard with the rules it has is the best one around right now. There are "mostly" UO:R shards with no tram, but they pick and choose so much from what they want, it gets a bit ridiculous.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:05 pm
by qbradq
My point of what they got wrong was that they had a majority player base that wanted nothing to do with PvP, so they gave them a land where they could opt-out of PvP. But then at the same time they incentivized these same people to go to Felucca and become victims for the PK player base.
The same thing is happening on this shard, just on a different level. I have no desire to participate in PvP. I put up with PKs here because I enjoy the PvE experiences this shard offers. I have not found any shards offering pre-AoS rule sets that have Trammel only or even Trammel enabled. If I found a T2A shard with PKing disabled (I.E. blues not attack-able) I'd go there in a heartbeat.
So until there exists a shard like that I will continue to support this one, carry trapped pouches, teleport rings and spare recall scrolls, and try not to be a victim.
Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:28 pm
by Light Shade
qbradq wrote:My point of what they got wrong was that they had a majority player base that wanted nothing to do with PvP, so they gave them a land where they could opt-out of PvP.
This is what everyone says happened, but it wasn't really the case. It did appear that way, though.
The "majority" was actually the minority that cried the loudest. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. The introduction of Trammel allowed Staff Pages to decrease (yes, people would page/rage over dying) which seemed like good business sense/efficiency at the time. The actual silent majority just went about their business and played the game as it was intended instead of asking the Developers to pander to their every whim.
After the introduction of UO:R, the playerbase took a solid hit. Sure, subscriptions went up, but what do you expect when it was 1 house per account and they introduced a new landmass (first real opportunity for some to get larger housing)...? Basically, players got extra accounts for extra houses because the system was setup to get you to pay OSI/EA more money. Then they went and added Bulk Order Deeds which caused many players to open multiple accounts to farm BOD's. It was a good ideal for making EA money, but the working concept as it applied to the in-game world was another story.
Point being, if PvP Rulesets were "wrong," then the actual number of players (not subscriptions) would have stayed the same or increased. After UO:R, the number of actual players slowly dropped off as the silent majority realized that the divisive nature of the dual-playstyles destroyed communities and friendships and ended up ruining the dynamic of the game. EA did their best with gimmicks like Ethereals, Samurai's, Elves, & BOD's to keep people opening new accounts for "rewards", but the damage was done and the online "world" that was Ultima Online was never the same. It was now just another video game where people collected stuff.
I'm glad this shard exists and that they do not pander to the "Trammel / Item Insurance" crowd.
-L/S
P.S. Where's my Unlimited Charge Furniture Dye Tubs?

Re: What UOR got Right
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:56 pm
by Soma
the bazookas wrote:Then power scrolls came in and any semblance of balance in the game was flushed down the crapper.
This a thousand times over.
The thing I love most about UO, especially during this period is that at 7xGM all of the players are equal, duels are more than not decided by skill and anyone willing to invest time/effort into better gear/items has to be willing to lose them if they were to die.
Power scrolls deserve to be thrown in the worst-video-game-ideas-that-ruin-games-pile along with QTE's and escort missions.