Surprisingly, yet Finally Losing Hope

FiFi the Wiccan
edited August 27 in General Discussion
Looking back to when I started Legends of Aria, I've heard from others that quite a lot of things were removed from when the game was known as "Shards Online". I assumed that they removed those things because they needed to be improved or renovated into something better for the game after they improved and optimized the core of the game itself.

While I was here, I witnessed these things being removed from Legends of Aria:

• Mounted Combat.
• Roughly 62.5% of non-consensual PvP. (75% if you include the Frozen Tundra which is now planned to be an upcoming PvE map.)
• Aspects of the Karma System—"Chaotic" being one of them.
• An aspect of build diversity—Prestige Abilities which are now Trained Abilities as per the Profession System.
• Copper-Silver-Gold Standard
• Every ability belonging to the Archer.
• The ability to heal wild creatures.


If I have missed anything else, please let me know.

They attempted to balance Mounted Combat, and supposedly listened to our suggestions while doing so, but we were told that it was impossible due to their engine.

PvP was reduced approximately by that amount because there was nothing they could do regarding balance about Outcasts killing those who wished to PvE, train the taming skills, mine ore, or cut wood which led to an alarming decrease in the population within my server (I don't know anything about the other servers) which I somewhat understood because I was one of those Tamers that kept being killed, and I had no choice but to join my killer's guild when he "offered" since he threatened to continue killing me if I didn't.

Niche and hybrid builds can no longer meet minimum requirements for prestige abilities anymore because, again, there was an issue with balancing those niche and hybrid builds. Archers had all of their abilities removed in favor of their new ability to strafe while AA'ing which consumes a very negligible amount of stamina per shot because they regain what they spent while they reload—the speed of which... isnt affected by Agility.

The Copper-Silver-Gold Standard was removed and replaced with just gold and platinum because they observed and came to the conclusion that too many Players had an issue with pricing their wares, understanding the value of items, and did not understand the conversion of each coin—basically too much confusion was their reason for changing it, and all this has done was made currency uninteresting, bland, and too heavy to bother carrying and looting when out and about.

Lastly, we recently lost the ability to heal wild creatures because of a few Griefers that lured creatures into towns and healed them while they were there attacking others.

Regarding PvP, like I said, I somewhat understand why they reduced PvP by that much and moved almost every high-end material and item into what is now more safe zones; however... this is too extreme. We once had too much PvP with barely any risks or repercussions—only restrictions that encompassed travel—placed upon those who want to become Griefers and Murderers, and now we have too much PvE where everything can be obtained from the expanded safe areas while there is now no incentive to travel to the Barren Lands unless there's something in the Dragon's Den, Halls of Deception, or Ruins of the Artificer a group wants.

I have nothing to say about Archery because I have no idea why they would remove all of their abilities and clump them in with Fighters, but I believed that they would eventually separate them, balance them, then grant all of their abilities back.

Lastly, what made more of my hope chip away was when they removed the ability to heal creatures.

This game features freedom, diversity, and the option to do almost anything in a sandbox world, but they're removing aspects of the game that allows us to do such things. They could have made it so Players with negative alignments would be whacked by the Guards if they were seen healing hostile creatures near them, and they could have given all creatives alignments as well. Whenever there was a creature I needed to tamed being attacked by something else, I would heal that creature to keep it alive, so I can save it and assist it with killing whatever is attacking it then tame it afterwards, but I can't even do that now. This is also an aspect of RP that was removed from those who enjoyed Legends of Aria in that fashion.

I have been seeing so many thoughtful and splendid suggestions being shared with the developers, and I know they do listen to us; however, I don't know who they have been giving their attention. I often see Players complaining about them not listening to us and not caring, yet... some of these people are giving them such atrocious suggestions such as the removal of the ability to heal creatures, and they actually listen to those people instead of the ones who give them suggestions that actually makes sense and suits their game.

I just don't really know how to feel anymore, and I'm most likely not going to reply to anything here since this was something I simply wanted to share; I'll continue sending in suggestions for their game, and watching their game to see if it will change its direction or stay true to its course, because I still have shreds of hope, but I have also realized that they may be disregarded like the other well-articulated suggestions in favor of suggestions that want more and more features removed from the game to the point of it not being recognizable as it was once advertised anymore.

Comments

  • RathadinRathadin Fort Worth, TX
    "PvP was reduced approximately by that amount because there was nothing they could do regarding balance about Outcasts killing those who wished to PvE, train the taming skills, mine ore, or cut wood which led to an alarming decrease in the population within my server (I don't know anything about the other servers) which I somewhat understood because I was one of those Tamers that kept being killed, and I had no choice but to join my killer's guild when he "offered" since he threatened to continue killing me if I didn't."

    The developers claimed to have worked on Ultima Online, but from what I gather, it was UO long after PVP had been dramatically curbed through updates.

    Its hilarious to me that 22 years later, there's still a bunch of jackasses that want to kill new players instead of trying to find someone on equal footing to go toe-to-toe with, and that was always the root of the problem. Things got a little better when people started making Player Killer Bounty Hunter guilds, but even spending 80% of my time tracking down and killing PKs, I probably didn't put much of a dent into the population.

    It proves that what people really want are to "jack noobs". They have pathetic lives and want to feel all-powerful because they're powerless in real life. What a damn shame.

    I bought this game on the August Steam sale had it cheap for $20. It could be a really great game, but it needs a *ton* of work... I mean easily another year. There's a boatload of quality of life changes that need to occur, not to mention probably outright bug fixes.

    That said, I actually think this game has potential. Its one of the few MMORPGs I actually enjoy.
  • Dumpy McWinklesDumpy McWinkles World First Grandmaster Stapler
    @Fi -- Early Access -- stuff will continue to change.. For me I am waiting to see content and systems added to and elaborated upon.. Mage needs way more spells, necro and pally need to come in, trade skills like inscription and Alchemy need more fleshing out.. More everything.

    If the game stagnates and they focus on everything but -- *shrug* $30 for some good times. You put a significant amount of stuff in the suggestions box, all that is left is to see what Citadel decides to do with it.
  • SachaSacha [Reino de Aldor]
    Much more things removed.
    I also don't agree with removing mob healing (unless they are undead :)
  • Watch the original development team discuss the genesis of Ultima Online and see the parallels between LOA and UO -

    Things I learned from the panel:
    - they embraced emergent play, not stopped it... killing of Richard Garriot sparked an entire philisophical shift for them... the players were in control
    - following on the idea of embracing emergent play, players were blocking others in with furniture and murdering them. They let it happen until the next patch where they made axes able to break furniture.
    - a player RP'd as Hulk Hogan and kept taunting Lord Blackthorne... eventually they had a wrestling match in game...

    I keep thinking about the role of an exceptional dungeon master. I refer to this thread on reddit in which OP asks DM's what 'sure why not' scenarios they allowed their players to partake. It's not necessarily the role of a good DM to tell their players, 'no no no, no you can't do that... no nope no." It's their job to enable fantastic adventures and foster emergent behavior.

    In this spirit I see the opposite philosophy being employed with LoA. Too much 'no we can't do that' (as they remove non-consensual pvp, mounted combat, hybrid templates.) and not enough, 'wow that was really clever of you... well watch as we do this and see what you do next!

    In UO they embraced the templates players were coming up with. We had hally mages, dex monkeys, and nox tamers... In LoA they created the profession system and locked everyone into 2 builds with practically zero diversity.

    Is this a sand box or is this not? If it is a sandbox then the emergent play has to be supported and not destroyed. CS should be promoting the awesome novel ideas that players come up with. In the panel Richard Garriot discusses that the very first players to join their server were a male character and a female character. Their first messages to each other were, 'want to cyber?' Within a week a player was running a fully functioning brothel by the docks in Brittain. He was the richest character at the time... perversion aside they embraced this play style and let it go on. This was the world of the players.

    I do not feel like the community in LoA is thriving nor do I feel that it has the full backing and support of the developers.


  • Death said:

    Watch the original development team discuss the genesis of Ultima Online and see the parallels between LOA and UO -

    Things I learned from the panel:
    - they embraced emergent play, not stopped it... killing of Richard Garriot sparked an entire philisophical shift for them... the players were in control
    - following on the idea of embracing emergent play, players were blocking others in with furniture and murdering them. They let it happen until the next patch where they made axes able to break furniture.
    - a player RP'd as Hulk Hogan and kept taunting Lord Blackthorne... eventually they had a wrestling match in game...

    I keep thinking about the role of an exceptional dungeon master. I refer to this thread on reddit in which OP asks DM's what 'sure why not' scenarios they allowed their players to partake. It's not necessarily the role of a good DM to tell their players, 'no no no, no you can't do that... no nope no." It's their job to enable fantastic adventures and foster emergent behavior.

    In this spirit I see the opposite philosophy being employed with LoA. Too much 'no we can't do that' (as they remove non-consensual pvp, mounted combat, hybrid templates.) and not enough, 'wow that was really clever of you... well watch as we do this and see what you do next!

    In UO they embraced the templates players were coming up with. We had hally mages, dex monkeys, and nox tamers... In LoA they created the profession system and locked everyone into 2 builds with practically zero diversity.

    Is this a sand box or is this not? If it is a sandbox then the emergent play has to be supported and not destroyed. CS should be promoting the awesome novel ideas that players come up with. In the panel Richard Garriot discusses that the very first players to join their server were a male character and a female character. Their first messages to each other were, 'want to cyber?' Within a week a player was running a fully functioning brothel by the docks in Brittain. He was the richest character at the time... perversion aside they embraced this play style and let it go on. This was the world of the players.

    I do not feel like the community in LoA is thriving nor do I feel that it has the full backing and support of the developers.


    +9999999
  • BJC289BJC289 Monterey Bay, California
    @Death Stop making so much sense, bro.. you keep making me want to stop playing the game. I came back to test more and try new things again and now I feel like Im wasting my time again lol. You make too much sense. :P
  • NemecNemec BRAZIl
    BJC289 said:

    @Death Stop making so much sense, bro.. you keep making me want to stop playing the game. I came back to test more and try new things again and now I feel like Im wasting my time again lol. You make too much sense. :P

    lol i feel the same.
    CS play Hire @Death and let him guide you all.. all of his posts makes too much sense.
  • Shit amazing post. I hope the Devs will read this. Supreme, what do you think? Can we let the players emerge with creative playstyles regardless of the narrow changed vision of the game?

    Come on man fun trumps the vision.
  • I appreciate the generous thoughts. Truth is that I offer my suggestions for free to the team because regardless of how critical I am of the game and the devs, Legends of Aria is something that I'm passionate about. I really want this game to succeed.
  • Archery, which is the type of play I most like, is indeed wretchedly messed up now. I have stopped playing, until it gets resolved...not because I am angry, so much, as because it's no longer enjoyable for me. It's really, really a mess.
  • Baja_BuysBaja_Buys Amber Moon
    edited September 4
    Death said:

    Watch the original development team discuss the genesis of Ultima Online and see the parallels between LOA and UO -

    Things I learned from the panel:
    - they embraced emergent play, not stopped it... killing of Richard Garriot sparked an entire philisophical shift for them... the players were in control
    - following on the idea of embracing emergent play, players were blocking others in with furniture and murdering them. They let it happen until the next patch where they made axes able to break furniture.
    - a player RP'd as Hulk Hogan and kept taunting Lord Blackthorne... eventually they had a wrestling match in game...

    I keep thinking about the role of an exceptional dungeon master. I refer to this thread on reddit in which OP asks DM's what 'sure why not' scenarios they allowed their players to partake. It's not necessarily the role of a good DM to tell their players, 'no no no, no you can't do that... no nope no." It's their job to enable fantastic adventures and foster emergent behavior.

    In this spirit I see the opposite philosophy being employed with LoA. Too much 'no we can't do that' (as they remove non-consensual pvp, mounted combat, hybrid templates.) and not enough, 'wow that was really clever of you... well watch as we do this and see what you do next!

    In UO they embraced the templates players were coming up with. We had hally mages, dex monkeys, and nox tamers... In LoA they created the profession system and locked everyone into 2 builds with practically zero diversity.

    Is this a sand box or is this not? If it is a sandbox then the emergent play has to be supported and not destroyed. CS should be promoting the awesome novel ideas that players come up with. In the panel Richard Garriot discusses that the very first players to join their server were a male character and a female character. Their first messages to each other were, 'want to cyber?' Within a week a player was running a fully functioning brothel by the docks in Brittain. He was the richest character at the time... perversion aside they embraced this play style and let it go on. This was the world of the players.

    I do not feel like the community in LoA is thriving nor do I feel that it has the full backing and support of the developers.


    spot. f'ing. on.

    Players created a lot of the "content" in UO -- I remember player run pvp tournaments, races/relay races, hunts, events -- along with the OSI or counselor events (then later, EMs). The more I play Aria, and the more questions I ask about things, the more I realize there are some really odd design choices/restrictions in this game.

    I understand it's early access, but I want it to succeed -- something internally needs to change. It's beyond the players.
  • Rathadin said:

    "PvP was reduced approximately by that amount because there was nothing they could do regarding balance about Outcasts killing those who wished to PvE,

    If by "there nothing they could do" you mean "they never tried to" in the last sentence.

    Just like they never tried to "fix" anything that people thought was wrong with the game. Its almost as if their vision for the game was to make it very feature rich at the start and then just remove anything that caused them problems. Not surprisingly people dislike it when anything remotely interesting is removed from the game.

    There were a ton of suggestions for how to fix mounted combat and outcasts both. They didn't try any of them. If outcasts had statloss or an 8 hour death timer most problems would have resolved themselves. CS just did the equivalent of letting a small infection fester for 6 months and then said, "See this too infected to be cured, we have to amputate."

    I can't count the number of times blue groups on our server decided it was time to wipe a group of reds causing problems a only to see the same group back in less than 10 minutes. I challenge you to explain how that cant be resolved with a simple death timer. I'm also pretty sure that the death timer could be coded in about half a day of work and is totally reusable for other things such as PvE bosses that prevent you from resing your group members mid fight.

    I was a blue player. I don't have a red character. I still think its stupid every time I see another blue player defend the recent design decisions. You think it sucks having your money stolen by a red? How about having your real life money stolen by a bait and switch design decision before the game ever saw an official release? If CS had tried some stuff and it all failed I would see the logic but it seems to me that they took peoples money and made something totally different from the project they said they were making.
Sign In or Register to comment.