Scalado wrote:

shade wrote:tl; but I did read it

There is no alternative to absolute adherence to a certain patch goal, for players and staff alike, because there is literally nothing else one could agree on.

The problem is that the systems' dynamics are so complicated I doubt even the original developers fully grasped them. A work of art (or body of science, for that matter), especially one created collectively, transcends the understanding of any one individual. This is also why the game was eventually patched into oblivion because the developers themselves failed to understand what made their game truly great.

All we have to go on is the memory of that awe-inspiring dynamic in the old days. Times and tactics have changed, yes, and a perfect recreation is therefore impossible (you'd have to erase all experience of players and do the same historical patches to the game). What we do know is that ToA marked the declining point and that there was a certain "sweet spot" before that.

Now if we keep introducing new variables (a lesson from Uth 1.0), we cannot hope to recreate even an approximation of the old experience. How do we know if a seemingly "minor" thing doesn't have a huge consequence for the entire server?

Foneb wrote:So you agree that uth should remove for example housing(1.63) in 2.0? According to your reasoning they definitly should close housing when they relaunch

Lasastard wrote:I sometimes wonder if this niggling about details isn't missing a bigger issue. I don't really think the "average" DAoC player is too concerned with class balancing - not like solo AMG campers or the 8vs8 crowed are anyway. What I think is much more important to those players is "accessibility", especially when it comes to RvR. They are not overly competitive but enjoy the original concept of the game - big zerg battles, keep fights and stuff like that.

So if you really really want to get these players engaged, you'll have to lower the barrier to enjoying RvR. Back in the day, Uthgard had Agramon and instant teleport to where the action was. And then look at Old Frontiers - that setup is a huge PITA for "random" players. Huge maps and a dwindling population doesn't make for epic fights. Remember that live servers had 3000 players online during prime time, and many of these where keen to go out into the frontiers. Now take Uthgard - maybe 700 players on a decent night, divided into 8vs8 Enthusiast, lone wolfs camping AMG and the rest rerolling toons over and over to get some enjoyment out of the battlegrounds.

So no matter how perfect you'll get the code, how exactly you can match the patch level - this will not fix the overall problem of people not participating in RvR because the OF Setup plus player numbers does not support it well enough.

At the minimum you'll need instant teleporting to keeps, removal of RvR sickness by NPC healers (which was a feature of live DAoC, something Blue always refused to believe) and some community work (events, for example).

Ilerget wrote:

Foneb wrote:So you agree that uth should remove for example housing(1.63) in 2.0? According to your reasoning they definitly should close housing when they relaunch

iirc Uth 2.0 patch will be 1.65, why they should remove something that is in the patch limit?

So we should remove the Battlegroups formular right?

at least some housing should be gone then

Foneb wrote:...

im not bashing on the particular change, but rather try to make a point that there is no way to say that we can all agree on 1.65 because stuff WILL be implemented from later Patches / even completly custom stuff like no Buffbots.

...

Njor wrote:

Foneb wrote:...

im not bashing on the particular change, but rather try to make a point that there is no way to say that we can all agree on 1.65 because stuff WILL be implemented from later Patches / even completly custom stuff like no Buffbots.

...

luckily we don't need to agree on anything here, Blue and Uthgard staff did that for us

cheers

relvinian wrote:I like blue vaporware and I want to argue about it.

Foneb wrote:

Ilerget wrote:

Foneb wrote:So you agree that uth should remove for example housing(1.63) in 2.0? According to your reasoning they definitly should close housing when they relaunch

iirc Uth 2.0 patch will be 1.65, why they should remove something that is in the patch limit?

Nvm i had 1.61 in mind for some reason. Lemme find another horrible example then ^^

1.66 - Introduced Battlegroups. So we should remove the Battlegroups formular right?
1.67 - The portal ceremonies at the border keeps have been altered slightly, to assist players who forget their necklaces from time to time. A new, earlier port has been added during the period where the teleporters previously stood around and waited for players to get ready. After the master and lackeys cast this new teleport, they will wait on the teleport pad and then cast the ceremony a second time. Only one port every 10 minute it is
1.67 - We are happy to introduce a new housing area for each realm with this version. Albion players can now settle down after a long day of adventuring in Brisworthy, while Midgard players can start building Frisia into a bustling haven of activity, and Hibernians can stake their claims and design the house of their dreams in Saerenthal.
at least some housing should be gone then

im not bashing on the particular change, but rather try to make a point that there is no way to say that we can all agree on 1.65 because stuff WILL be implemented from later Patches / even completly custom stuff like no Buffbots.

The hole staff should rather keep the "idea" of 1.65 in Mind and then gradually balance classes in a completly custom way.
As i tried to prove above just saying 1.65 and nothing else pretty sure will be just plain worng.

Foneb wrote:

Njor wrote:

Foneb wrote:...

im not bashing on the particular change, but rather try to make a point that there is no way to say that we can all agree on 1.65 because stuff WILL be implemented from later Patches / even completly custom stuff like no Buffbots.

...

luckily we don't need to agree on anything here, Blue and Uthgard staff did that for us

cheers

agree, just saying that hiding behind the "its 1.65 like" doesnt work its an argument wich has to be weight against other arguments to find a workable solution for the players without loosing the 1.65 feel.

Njor wrote:
"lowering the barrier", "instant .."-this and that, "making it easy for new players" is exactly what brought live down ....
imho Uthgard is aiming for a patchgoal of 1.65 to bring back the feeling of achievement if you do something challenging, not to attract millions of attention deficit disordered kids who need their rewards by the minute

cheers