Boondox wrote:
Blue Pig wrote:
Boondox wrote:
so what about a game that had open pvp then changed to restricted pvp and became a failure like UO(Ultima Online). when trammel was added in everyone flocked to trammel where it was safe and pvp basicly died out.
If everyone flocked to Trammel, that's a hint and a half that "everyone" didn't want gankfest PvP, no? UO was the first true MMO to come out. It had no competition. It didn't fail because Trammel was put in. If everyone went there, then the population just moved. How would that cause the game to fail or die? You want to know why UO died out? EverQuest : competition from a PvE game. That and the fact that, if you go back and play it now, UO is essentially a crappy game. But even a crappy "first of it's kind" game can be a great initial success.

I must say that EQ (after the first month or two) was the most boring timesink I've ever played. Ever. Brad McQuaid was a clever and sadistic/malicious "so and so." Essentially, he made a game that simulated fun, instead of making a game that actually was fun to play. Bigger and bigger bats. A tired model that other developers still follow. However, I will say that the best feature of EQ was that in a good group you actually could have a lot of fun.
UO failed from Trammel because it made the game just like every other MMO UO was fun because you never knew when a red would randomly stroll by and attack you. And everyone one went to trammel because they want to play the game on easymode with no risk. Yea alot of people did gank and grief in UO but thats what the blue guilds were for that hunted reds, go to brit bank and say reds at covetous Boom they are dead and you can go back to hunting. The whole free for all pvp just adds a little extra risk to the game and some player protection.
This doesn't sound very logical to me....if it was open PvP and risk what made UO fun then why did everyone go to trammel to avoid the most fun part of the game ? Doesn't it mean that they didn't find it fun ?