Demise Rules.

General discussion pertaining to the Demise shard. Off-topic posts will be moderated.
Post Reply
User avatar
Will-twins
Posts: 354
Location: canada

Demise Rules.

Post by Will-twins »

demise rules atm

Multi-clienting
Do not use multiple clients in combat. This is defined as the use of one or more extra clients that provide you with an advantage in combat.
Do not be involved in combat in two different locations with two different clients.
Alternate characters may be kept close, unautomated, for resurrection


this should be the new rules.


a) Player vs. Monster (PvM)
Multi-client use is allowed in PvM. This means a player may have more than one account logged into demise at a time, and use up to 4 accounts simultaneously while fighting against non-player characters/monsters.
Dungeons have their own unique restrictions – this mearn you can do pvm with with 4 accounts in 4 differente dungeon or spot.

b) Player vs. Player (PvP)
Multi-client PvP is not allowed. This includes dealing damage from two or more characters simultaneously, walling, blocking, revealing, hiding, healing, resurrecting and issuing aggressive pet commands.
You may not seek out PvP encounters using multiple clients.
Using more than one account in a PvP scenario will result jail.


listen if you can do 4 accounts at hw quest automatized/4 accounts giving bods/4 accounts collecting resoursce or selling resoursce them that should be legal to do example 1 sampire at despice and 1 pvper at brit.

ALL THIS NO AFK.
alllex likes this.
Top
User avatar
Calvin
Posts: 5686
Location: UK

Re: Demise Rules.

Post by Calvin »

"a) Player vs. Monster (PvM)
Multi-client use is allowed in PvM."

there is a problem with the pvm combat. but this is not how to fix it.

the issue is that some fight you should need a group for.
but currently there aren't really any.
peerless maybe, but you still split the reward.
fel champ spawns maybe, but they'll get raided and waste your time.

the multiclient rule is to stop people soloing pvm content that is supposed to requirea group.
content that requires a group is KEY to getting people working together and building community.

this other game i've been playing lately literally has a bunch of quests with really good rewards, that you cant complete without like making a group, or joining a house. so you end up joining groups and a house. it sucks you into the game.

the problem isn't that we have pvm content made for groups that will be made better by being able to solo it.
the problem is that people CAN solo the group content ALREADY.

i mean you're right in a way, it would open up a lot of gameplay possibilities, but it would be sacrificing any motivation to make groups and guilds..


imagine this as an example: the way you get trinket roll, would be to do sin dungeon. but each account can only go to sin dungeon once a month.
now would people bother logging in to use that monthly attempt? would they make a group of solid players to improve their chances?
im not saying do that, but that's the sort of thing we need; to get people more involved in the areas we need them involved in.

or like once a week and it drops from a massive list of every possible event reward?
maybe people would set up weekly meeting times?
stuff like grim reaper peerless at halloween is a perfect example, but the keys are a pain in the ass to farm.. it's right they should be like that, but regardless how you look at it, people aren't doing it. which means something needs tweaking, somewhere.

the resource gathering in UO is all grind, but it allows you to enter the trading game. automation is supposed to remove the grind, not the gameplay..

see you're not actually supposed to be fighting the monsters you are fighting. you should be on harder monsters, but there aren't really any... and the rewards aren't in proportion to the difficulty..
what you're doing is basically this, but automating it:


i mean, i suppose if you're gonna grind boars then it should be automatable, but you're not supposed to be grinding boars lol.
and if it's to kill bigger monsters, then you're supposed to need a group.

(this is what actual games design is btw, trying to make people play how you want them to play, because you've planned that to be the funnest way of playing. but you're supposed to use the rules to 'encourage' them to do what you want ;) that's why it's psychology really. if you have to force them to do it... that's not good. quite often you have to tho.. it's not ideal no, but it is necessary. you cant let the players break the system, it can take stress, but if they start playing in unintended ways, they might get more fun out of the immediate thing, but it wont mesh with the bigger game systems.)

(like lets say i made a stealth game, but i allow the player to kill the enemies. the player may start speccing into combat instead of stealth - while all the gameplay design is based on stealth. so i might have to make the enemies invulnerable to stop that happening. see ideally you want the player to have the option to go combat, but to never actually choose it. this is the flaw in UO tbh. it actually does give you the choice, it has to, because that's why it's different. that's what makes it what it is, but it's a nightmare to design for.)

(if this were an fps, imagine a door in a corridor, and you cant open it. there's nothing behind that door, it's fake. but in UO, there has to be something behind it. the player has to have the choice to go in. that's why uo is what it is, and is such a mammoth thing. it's why bigger studios couldn't work with it, and why it takes so long to make anything, and is always buggy. it's not a massive world, but it's a very high resolution world, packed with detail.)



fkin love that show :D
anthony hopkins is basically richard garriott at EA

-----

but anyway the point is not to make it easier to farm the boars, or to make stronger monsters take the boars place.. it's to get players doing the content that gets them playing how you want them to play - socially.

because that is what actually makes the game, the society it creates, not the pvm combat, or the pvp.
allowing multiclienting would undermine that.
Vampire337 likes this.
Top
User avatar
Will-twins
Posts: 354
Location: canada

Re: Demise Rules.

Post by Will-twins »

There no sense about what ur saying im not talking about fighting with a group im saying i want to solo mods with sampires AND with other accounts going pvp without getting banned for doing 2 combats in same time. I dont like running Hw or resourse that is" legal " i want to run a sampire for golds/and jewl.
Vampire337
Posts: 47
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: Demise Rules.

Post by Vampire337 »

Always a good read, Calvin. I don't think I agree that the point is just to build a community; if that were the case we could all just hang out in Discord instead of playing UO. I play to relive the good ol days, and a lot of that is taming pets I never could without macroing taming, buying junk I couldn't afford without grinding gold, and letting a script chew through an endless pile of bulk orders. I don't generally PvP and I started a guild solely to train pets in Trammel. I liked how GuildWars instanced you so you could go play the game without having other people get in the way. I'm maybe not the ideal MMO player.

That said, I don't know that I think it would make the game, community or economy any better to encourage people to have 4 clients in 4 different dungeons grinding loot. If everyone can do it, then you all but have to do it to keep up. Seems like your resources might be better spent using your PC to generate bitcoin than to automatedly grind all the content in an MMO. As a PvM player I would find it annoying to compete with more bots. Maybe a better 'fix' would be to give players a space to do nothing but bot macro, leaving the playable world to players. Maybe the issue isn't in the boars, but that the game isn't playable without feeding boars through a slaughterhouse.
(like lets say i made a stealth game, but i allow the player to kill the enemies. the player may start speccing into combat instead of stealth - while all the gameplay design is based on stealth. so i might have to make the enemies invulnerable to stop that happening. see ideally you want the player to have the option to go combat, but to never actually choose it. this is the flaw in UO tbh. it actually does give you the choice, it has to, because that's why it's different. that's what makes it what it is, but it's a nightmare to design for.)
This actually is why I, as a software developer, think that the greatest failing of UO is that there isn't any real development, just bandaids and events to keep people interested. I remember when houses didn't have lockdowns and limits, in the days before every meaningful NPC was invulnerable. They didn't need to make the game this rigid (IMO), but took a lazy approach to solve the problem of players not playing the game the way they intended (and UO is rife with doors that don't open or lead anywhere). If EA wasn't milking UO with minimal investment, they could invest in some devs who'd make it a new experience. Like how Runscape seems to have done.
or like once a week and it drops from a massive list of every possible event reward?
maybe people would set up weekly meeting times?
I think this approach is absolutely bad. They did okay with bulk orders, because ultimately you could get around the one-per-8hour-per-crafting-character limitation. There are hundreds of mobile and Facebook games that put a hard cap on how many times you can do a task in a set amount of time. UO is a great MMO in part because it lacks "dailies". Incentivizing returning at regular times is the scourge of modern casual & MMO gaming (IMO).
Calvin likes this.
Top
Post Reply