i'm sorry, i didn't want to light up a semi-flaming thread :p

i'm sure that, such as every single server of every single game, Uthgard will give much to us who get back to DAoC after so many years.. just because WE will do the good game for us.. the good rvr kind for us.. etc.. like - i presume - everyone here is already doing (if this wasn't right, people won't play here).. for sure Uth, as an emu shard, will have some problems, but the reason why we've got back to an OF shard is NOT the 100% emu to the official servers.. we'll do our best like all other players.. we'll do our best to get the most fun time that Uth can give us.. again, like all other players..

So - and forgive my not-so-good english - i can say that actually Uthgard has a positive balance.. good stuff >>> little gaming issues..

so forgive me but i have to get back to my business in the deep black hearth of Mithra's tomb

have fun

Oro

Blue wrote:

Zarkor wrote:Satisfied customers (players) are one of the best ways to advertise your service, and even more so on the internet.

Uthgard can't satisfy any players need as play styles and requirements differ a lot.

Sure they can, remember agramon?

There is only a couple of playstyles in daoc, and you managed to ruin almost all of them by various removals.

If you want to make ppl here happy, you can start by ADDING content instead of removing it.

Braxis wrote:Sure they can, remember agramon?

There is only a couple of playstyles in daoc, and you managed to ruin almost all of them by various removals.

If you want to make ppl here happy, you can start by ADDING content instead of removing it.

You forget, it satisfied your play style but not of all others. Don't mix that up. Else we had 600 players in NF and not 100.
Also to note, Uthgard doesn't target to be a BG style server same as we don't target to be an instant server.

Blue wrote:You forget, it satisfied your play style but not of all others. Don't mix that up. Else we had 600 players in NF and not 100.
Also to note, Uthgard doesn't target to be a BG style server same as we don't target to be an instant server.

You forget NF did satisfy everyone since it had everything OF does has in a single zone + better keeps + better mob camps + better layout and a great area for gvg fighting called agramon. The only people OF satisfies better are milegate and horseroute campers. The only reason why OF has just as many people as NF did is because milegate/horseroute camping is so popular (just look at rector's piecharts, stealthers are almost 40% of the rvr population) while every other (normal) form of rvr has died off compared to NF days.

"Normal" is a stretchable word. In RL too. NF was not liked by everyone how you want to make it look.
Imo the only way to solo in OF is invisible or join a zerg. Also the milegate invites stealthers to camp. Thats why the stealther classes are in favor.

Blue wrote:"Normal" is a stretchable word. In RL too. NF was not liked by everyone how you want to make it look.

So basically the only rvr you do support is stealthers. Well that explains alot, ty

Lemonjelly wrote:

Blue wrote:"Normal" is a stretchable word. In RL too. NF was not liked by everyone how you want to make it look.

So basically the only rvr you do support is stealthers. Well that explains alot, ty

I support oldschool OF. If Mythic was plagued with the same problem we shouldnt wonder that it appears here. They introduced two milegates on each side of Agramon to circumvent the camper problem. If it was that good, shouldnt you wonder why players wanted OF back? And I mean not Uthgard players but live players.

Blue wrote:I support oldschool OF. If Mythic was plagued with the same problem we shouldnt wonder that it appears here.

Yup and they fixed that problem on live. You support oldschool bugs and imbalances for the sake of nostalgia, it has nothing to the functionality of the zone (which is crappy tbh).

Blue wrote:They introduced two milegates on each side of Agramon to circumvent the camper problem. If it was that good, shouldnt you wonder why players wanted OF back? And I mean not Uthgard players but live players.

WHAT who on live wanted OF back : DDDDDDDDD now you're just making stuff up.

Lemonjelly wrote:WHAT who on live wanted OF back : DDDDDDDDD now you're just making stuff up.

Obviously you must have missed something.

Would you care to point it out to me with something more than a word from someone who didn't even touch live daoc ?

There definitely was a lot of whining about NF on live servers, mainly because it didn't have "tiered" zones anymore where you could move to odins or even hw if emain was too zergy. NF had a lot of no inc at all or huge zerg. Both solos and groups had the problem of not having set zones to roam anymore, but only the choice between nothing and ****** like dc bridge or close keeps with ports (Nott and Bled, etc..). Solo situation got better when agramon died as a primary RvR zone and left the bridges for the solos and 8vs8 situation got better when 8vs8 zones were established.

Nothing of that really applies to Uthgard as RvR population is way too low here for that to matter.

@Lemon: Just for your interest as you obviously lived in the woods

http://www.camelotherald.com/news/news_ ... oryid=3582
http://vnboards.ign.com/daoc_origins/b23269/p1

The vast majority was happier with NF on Uthgard. The vast majority was happier with NF on Live.

ToA and the subsequent expansions which shifted balance from RvR destroyed DAoC, not NF and not class-balancing changes.


Oh, and as for your link about the Origins server, you also should do a bit of research before you post something:

1.) No one knows how exactly the maps would have looked like
2.) They wanted new archery.
3.) They wanted to completely remap CC. Here's a quote: "Our goal is to set it up so that the longest mez spell in the game is no longer than 20 to 25 second".
4.) They wanted to remove the porting ceremony.
5.) The DID NOT want to go back to OF RAs.
6.) THEY WANTED TO REMOVE THE THEURGIST CLASS.

Does this sound like Uthgard to you? Or even "Classic"?

Blue wrote:Imo the only way to solo in OF is invisible or join a zerg.

And you're okay with that?

This is completely and utterly absurd. I have lost even the little faith I had in the announced changes and "improvements". Every single one of the few players left who were defending OF should just take a look at the above quote.

Wow. Just...wow.

Nymeros wrote:The vast majority was happier with NF on Uthgard. The vast majority was happier with NF on Live.

I would like to remind you on the vote we did before we made the decision to throw NF into trash. (I know you will tell it was manipulated but you can say that about every vote not in your favor).

Also the state Agramon reached in its last days was not what Uthgard stands for and simply put a workaround for all these whines going on in NF for a long time.

The changes Mythic thought would be good for Origins are not what the player wanted to see. I'm sure nobody wanted a removal of the Theurg class for the sake of classic. But there were a vast amount of players who just wanted to play on a server like back in the days of 2002/2003.

I promise you if Uthgard would implement NF like it was on live our population would drop under 200 rather quickly.

Blue wrote:@Lemon: Just for your interest as you obviously lived in the woods

http://www.camelotherald.com/news/news_ ... oryid=3582
http://vnboards.ign.com/daoc_origins/b23269/p1

Cool, what happened to that ?

Blue wrote:I promise you if Uthgard would implement NF like it was on live our population would drop under 200 rather quickly.

A population of 200 in rvr would be a significant increase really.