Azzerhoden wrote:I am going to disagree with everything in your list that is not applicable to the MMO, because I want the MMO and the features that would translate in to the MMO as the top priority.
LIF:YO is a great concept and a success in terms of funding the MMO, but the MMO should always be the top dog in priority.
Already possible.Allquixotic wrote:This is a matter of personal opinion and perspective. First of all, there are a lot of people who want to play LiF:YO in a "sandbox" concept for many reasons:
1. People want to be able to use their own mods.
Did you ignore the warning that this is an Alpha for the MMO? Further, I didn't say anything about not continuing work on YO down the road, just that features found in both should have a priority. As stated elsewhere, YO is a stand-alone product, and will continue to be supported even after the MMO is launched.Allquixotic wrote:2. The game is pricey. At $40, it's almost as much money as an AAA game, yet what we currently have is very very limited and buggy.
You did see the road map right? Everything you listed there is in the road map. Further, it is a road map for YO, not for the MMO. However, what is not listed in the road map is a lot of the features listed as must haves by the OP.Allquixotic wrote:3. While there are a ton of features that would be mutually beneficial for both LiF:YO and the MMO (and can share the same code, so developing the feature once will help both projects), there are also more immediate needs that must be tended to ...
So, wow. How long have you been following this game? Because LIF:YO exists as a way to fund the MMO. Yes it is a stand alone game. Yes it will exist after the MMO. But there is a reason why everyone who purchased YO gets a free character xfer off newbie island (which is what we are playing on) to the lands of the MMO.Allquixotic wrote:Remember, the devs have committed to making A GAME out of LiF:YO. The product WAS NOT sold as a "donation for funding the MMO" that would be summarily abandoned when the MMO enters public beta. If that's how they're going to treat it, then they should be prepared for an epic fistful of negative publicity and widespread panning of the ethics of their company.
Pointing back to the road map. All those things are related to fleshing out YO and making it a better product. What the OP wants though, is much more than that. You talk about reputation, but you forget that people bought this to help fund the MMO. Not to mention those who contributed before YO came out. What about that commitment?Allquixotic wrote:For these reasons, I hope that Bitbox does the polar opposite of what you suggest. While yes, there will be people within their organization working on "MMO-only" code that will never hit LiF:YO, and there will always be people working on "YO and MMO both" code that helps both products, they still need to have people spending time on "YO-only" code, because their reputation is absolutely on the line here.
This is just absurd.Allquixotic wrote:To demand less of them is to say to them, "Yes, please feel free to abuse your customers; we actively like it when you do that to us!". As customers we have a responsibility to one another to hold these companies to a higher standard and live up to their commitments.
Allquixotic wrote:Also, I'm super curious to know how they intend to make this game scalable to tens or hundreds of thousands of people in an area that must be hundreds of square kilometers in area, if they can't even code up a server backend that can stay stable for 24 hours with 1-2 months of player activity accrued on a 9 km^2 island. You'd think they could use LiF:YO as a testing ground for introducing optimizations and scalability tricks that would benefit LiF:YO hosters while also laying the groundwork for the MMO. So in many ways, there aren't too many things that are an "either-or" situation, where it's *either* an MMO feature *or* a YO feature. They can definitely choose to do their work in a way that benefits YO in the short term while preparing for the MMO.
Azzerhoden wrote:I am going to disagree with everything in your list that is not applicable to the MMO, because I want the MMO and the features that would translate in to the MMO as the top priority.
LIF:YO is a great concept and a success in terms of funding the MMO, but the MMO should always be the top dog in priority.
Bhalin17 wrote:Azzerhoden wrote:I am going to disagree with everything in your list that is not applicable to the MMO, because I want the MMO and the features that would translate in to the MMO as the top priority.
LIF:YO is a great concept and a success in terms of funding the MMO, but the MMO should always be the top dog in priority.
Well what of the points is not ok for an MMO ?
Never played an MMO in a Sandbox style ? just think of ULTIMA Online.
Your point makes no sense....
Bhalin17 wrote:*addet*
- haveing quivers on the belt slot. (having it on the back is a stupid hollywood invention...try once to run with a quiver on back and shoot at the same time...wont work)
Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
Azzerhoden wrote:I think it should be based on the type of quiver. Right now bows are very superior to crossbows. So much so there is no point in not using a bow. I know that bows still need to be tweaked, but even afterwords, I think something needs to be done to give a reason to use crossbows.
One of my thoughts was to allow bolts to be belted on to the hip. The shafts for a crossbow are much shorter than those for a bow. From a balance standpoint, crossbows would allow a player to equip a shield or 2 handed weapon, where as a bow wielder could not.
I think that would force either style to make some hard choices.
Azzerhoden wrote:I think it should be based on the type of quiver. Right now bows are very superior to crossbows. So much so there is no point in not using a bow. I know that bows still need to be tweaked, but even afterwords, I think something needs to be done to give a reason to use crossbows.
One of my thoughts was to allow bolts to be belted on to the hip. The shafts for a crossbow are much shorter than those for a bow. From a balance standpoint, crossbows would allow a player to equip a shield or 2 handed weapon, where as a bow wielder could not.
I think that would force either style to make some hard choices.
Willbonney wrote:I feel that the real issue currently with crossbows, is the lack of special skills to go along with them at certain skill levels. One idea I've had about those skills would be:
Fortified:
Crossbowman is rooted in place, but while the skill is active receives 2x reloading speed. Primarily useful when defending walls or other fortified positions. Toggled on and off with a 10 second cooldown.
Willbonney wrote:Um, no.
Guillotenes were invented in 1792 and used the most, historically, during the French Revolution. There were other beheading machines (most modeled after the Halifax Gibbet), but they weren't guillotenes. France loved them so much, the last one was used in 1977. Not very medeival.