Legends of Aria indefinitely delays patch, works on experimental server instead

    
17

We’ve certainly been wondering what’s happened to Legends of Aria, which went really quiet in the early part of 2021 here. The last we heard, Citadel Studios had promised some sort of update or announcement for this fantasy MMO while working on a survival RPG called The End.

Well, wait no longer: Citadel just posted an immediate roadmap for Legends of Aria’s development, saying that while the small team’s been “hindered” during the pandemic year, it has a few items of note to share — and it’s not all good news.

The studio announced that it’s delaying the Point 11 patch (with work on Outlands, Necromancy, and pet skills) “indefinitely” due to temporary downsizing. Instead, Citadel polled the community and is refocusing on other areas, such as revisiting the faction system and opening the community admin program to the public.

Legends of Aria is also going to get an “experimental server” called The Forge that will be smaller and offer a more meaningful experience. “To prepare for the launch of this server, we will be revisiting the map of Celador and creating a smaller, more intimate play area designed to encourage cooperation,” Citadel said.

Source: Legends of Aria. Thanks Squid!
Advertisement

No posts to display

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Ragemaster9999

I’m sorry but the writing has been on the wall for some time for this game. It has been mismanaged from the very beginning. I backed this game back when it was shards online and the devs never seemed to have much of a design focus let alone the expertise to bring it to fruition.

Steamcharts reports daily players of 50 or less and with the staff downsizing its clear the company behind it is not solvent and its only a matter of time before they close up shop.

port13
Reader
port13

I’m just waiting for the new UO map in Legends of Ultima community server!

Reader
tom foolery

Keep waiting

Reader
Ragemaster9999

Your better off just playing ultima outlands. Freeshard uo with peak 3k daily players makes an absolute laughing stock out of loa.

Reader
Arktouros

This is pretty much the perfect example of a dead game. It’s so dead they need to shrink the world size to adjust the game content to match it’s low player base and activity while abandoning any game expansion or updates. Hopefully for the 50 people left playing this will make the game more enjoyable than roaming around the huge carcass of a game that once held promise before the devs fucked it up.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
squid

It certainly doesn’t help that one of their main focuses over the past year was increasing the landmass.

Reader
Arktouros

I mean logically speaking that’s the best thing to work on typically in games, constantly expand your content.

It’s just doesn’t work though if you got 50 people left playing your game.

Relmharver
Reader
Relmharver

This game was dead even before they screwed their player base for the third time.

MilitiaMasterV
Reader
MilitiaMasterV

Wasn’t this the game that was basically building from the whole Sword Art Online ‘Seed’ idea?

Legends of Aria

What the heck happened to it…

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
squid

“To prepare for the launch of this server, we will be revisiting the map of Celador and creating a smaller, more intimate play area designed to encourage cooperation,” Citadel said.

Translation: The PKs couldn’t find enough victims, so we’re going to make it easier for them.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Blake

Yep, all eight of them remaining might have something to do with one another.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
squid

I just feel like the LoA devs missed what made UO—and let’s not pretend LoA wasn’t meant to be UO 1.5—fun for the average player. Yeah, it’s a tough needle to thread, but I feel like they just had some weird tendencies, such as making new content significantly more difficult than old, ‘forcing’ a rares market, overemphasis on group play, and specifically tailoring game systems (and even the map itself) to ‘balance’ PvP. Everything ended up feeling staged—like there was a right and wrong way to play in the sandbox, and the game kept nudging you towards the ‘right’ way.

I guess they tried to build what UO became (in the late 90’s), instead of building a world and letting the players decide what it became, as UO did. Oh well.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Blake

That and the changing of directions is what ended any chance they had of succeeding. They gave their early supporters whiplash by doing that. I know I kind of checked out after a few of them myself.

Logged into the player run shards UO and Hope a few times but think I’m pretty much done with the game and the company as a whole.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
squid

Yeah, the flip flops were a big problem, and the root cause of them will doom the game going forward. The ruleset flip flops were a result of the devs hanging out in the Discord and getting caught up in certain narratives pushed by a handful of lurkers. Now they’ve come right out and said their new direction is based on what the lurkers want and their new, paid server will effectively be designed by those same people? Color me skeptical.

I’m also skeptical that Legends of Ultima will ever release their Britannia map/new game. They teased the launch for Spring 2020 and…yeah, didn’t happen. There’s only been one patch to test since July, and it was a balance pass for the existing server—not new map/server content.

I’m not surprised. It always seemed odd to me that they thought they could just copy UO when even Richard Garriott couldn’t do anything more than toss around the word ‘Avatar’. I think the LoU devs just lost interest when LoA died, despite their claims that there was a ‘plan’ and the loss of LoA somehow wouldn’t affect LoU. Sure.

Reader
Vanquesse V

The flip-flopping was what killed them, but even before that I felt the devs could never explain why they went with their idea vs what was done in UO, and at the same time I felt that they didn’t fix a lot of what I percieve to be isses with UO.
In a way those are linked, because if you don’t have a clear vision you can easily get lost and listening only to the loudest fans rarely works out well

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
squid

Oftentimes it was definitely a case of doing it differently for the sake of just being different, even if it was made worse. The entire development was a great example of why developers should make a plan and stick to it throughout development, unless there are significant reasons to change direction. Discord chatter, however persistent, should not dictate development, as it represents a miniscule portion of the playerbase.

LoA also suffered from a too-long open development period. By the time they ‘launched’, everyone who was going to try the game already had, and most had set it aside. Things might have worked out differently if access had been more limited pre-launch—bigger crowds post-launch may have helped for this sandbox—but it’s unclear if they could have managed it financially.

Reader
Vanquesse V

There’s a saying in gamedev “always trust your players when they say there’s a problem. Never trust what your players say is the problem”.
Fun Fact: I bought LoA before it hit steam, around the time when they only ran the servers during certain periods and even though I readthrough the entire section of info on the game and the FAQ on their website I didn’t know it had forced pvp with full loot till someone mentioned it in the ingame chat