THE ONLY THREAD ABOUT Shard Consolidations

[Lord Frodo]

LITERALLY comparing a video game to concentration camps... Wow.

That was written for special people that like to use RL in trying to solve UO problems. I play UO for enjoyment and that includes where (shard) I play and if my enjoyment is gone then I will no longer play/pay, bottom line. We play to enjoy and forcing people in not enjoyment.

 

[Smoot]

fact of the matter is, there would be no need for shard mergers if UO was free to play.

 

[Longtooths]

im speaking about the players who went inactive when population was much higher and come back to much lower pop. the original reason for cancelling the sub had nothing to do with population.




if my account were inactive for a significant portion of time (no house), during which time the population of my shard diminished greatly (lets say 2007 pop compared to 2015) Yes i would love it if Broadsword would transfer me to a higher population one automatically.

Im making these "assumptions" off a significant amount of players who have icqed me over the past 2 years with problems because they have come back to the game, ask where everyone is, get told "everyones on atlantic" and become frustrated that they have just paid a sub fee, and now have to spend more $$ on transfer tokens.

Fair enough but where do the people fit in that are contrary to exactly what you have said. What happens to those that want to stay on their home shard, period.....My point is you can not qualify the amount of people for or against this. You naturally side with those that agree with your theory.

Once again, just as a reminder, your words:

....how do you think it effects every player who comes back to the game

 

[Lady CaT]

Do you know anyone that wants to transfer off Atlantic?

*raises hand* I can't wait to get back to Chesapeake. I regret ever moving to Atlantic.

 

[Deraj]

The only "fair" way to do this would be to shut them all down and begin from scratch. Some shards are quiet and there is a market for that. People like quiet shards. I don't think the goal should be to create a lesser amount of crowded shards. In UO, history means a lot, and this is why I think this idea of "merging" shards could never fly.

But sure, for arguments sake, let's put ATL on the chopping block.

Stupid idea you say? You may be right OR perhaps removing that one shard is the best shot at all remaining shards getting that population boost that the lot of you seem to want. Remove the economic hub and watch the individual shard economies boom... that is until a new hub is established. It's the simplest, most efficient solution aside from doing nothing.

It seems that this topic gets brought up at least once every two or three months. Well... there is mine. I see a lot of ATL folks frequently speaking on behalf of the mergers. How would shard mergers sound if it was Atlantic on the ax list?

I am not going to tell you that putting Atlantic on the chopping block is either stupid or smart. But if you were to perform shard mergers, closing dead shards would have a lesser impact overall. In other words, shard mergers, no matter how it could be done, would be painful - I am only suggesting the least painful method I can imagine.

What is fair? How can any solution, or lack of solution, be called truly "fair"? It is said that it is unfair to force dead-sharders to move and that their homes and pixels are being taken away. What about what was taken from me? Was it fair for me to be "forced" by the uncontrollable circumstances of falling population to move from Napa Valley to Atlantic? Was it fair for falling populations to diminish "my" gameplay experience? I never wanted to have to move. I even resisted the idea on my first attempt at coming back to UO. I can play the unfairness card just as much as anybody else - the only difference is that I have already taken the medicine that I am suggesting here now, and if the devs actually did close down a shard I was on, Atlantic or otherwise, I would take it again.

I am not dismissing nor making light of the complaints, which are perfectly rational in my view, regarding houses and items. But is UO really condemned to being chained to its pixels and memories of better days?

 

[Tamais]

fact of the matter is, there would be no need for shard mergers if UO was free to play.

Not necessarily true. Lord of the rings on line is free to play. They just announced shard mergers to happen this summer. Reason low population on some shards

 

[JoO]

I think my merged facets idea is the best overall solution. However as far as a straight up shard merger. I would give everything I have ever owned in uo for it.

 

[Deraj]

It's a reasonably argued point of view, far more so than the usual 'rants' about shard mergers, but it still strikes me as aiming time and effort at the wrong problem....



I disagree with that pretty strongly. It makes no increase to the population of the game, it just makes certain ghettoes within the game more densely populated by levelling some others, and the core of the problem surely is the lack of population overall, not a level on any given shard?

I still remain convinced the basic problem is total playing population, and getting that back to healthy levels across the whole game. Shard merging and shuffling would be expending a lot of time and energy in Broadsword covering over the problem instead of the absolutely vital requirement of resolving it.

The main, central and overriding thing needed for the future 'good of the game' is more players, shard mergers does nothing practical towards that aim - rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, and chucking a few overboard, is not going to make any difference to anything except to those passengers being pissed off that their chair is gone....

From my viewpoint, what would be good for the game is rules enforcement, sorting out all the gaping 'security holes' that allow the continued duping of items, resolving the utter absence of any worthwhile new player 'experience', incomprehensible systems, the balance between so many effectively useless skills and far fewer really important ones, overcomplicated equipment assembly (in making things, and building suits, and interlocking properties and skills over all your equipment), prompt and effective customer support in-and out of game.... sort out those, which are utterly fundamental, before tinkering with the rest, please. Make it a pleasant, engaging, and FUN way to spend time, and make it much more possible for new players to experience that from the start.

Building a game that people actively want to play should be the only target in view. Do that and you can bring more people in. Nobody is going to be induced to come play UO because fewer shards with more people makes them go 'whoa, that was what held me back all these years'. People who have left UO have not all left because of graphics, or systems, or billing, or getting older, or real life issues, or other games or even combinations thereof - the real fundamental reason any people stop playing a game is it stops being enough fun to keep playing. Surely that has to be what any effort by the devs and Broadsword is directed at. Making a slowly declining game decline a bit more slowly by shuffling the players about is really not doing anything at all to solve the problem, and is more likely to shrink the playerbase then expand it.

You might have misunderstood the statement you have quoted, because I do agree with your post. I understand that shard mergers are essentially shuffling a total playing population, as you put it, and furthermore, I would argue that most of the game's problems are rooted in gameplay. I also do not claim that mergers will be the end-all solution - far from it. However, barring some profound improvement which significantly and permanently (well, for the forseeable future anyways) increases the population of all the shards and restores them to a reasonable level, then I will continue to believe that merging shards is necessary for the improvement of UO through both player retention and even gameplay to some extent, for community and gameplay are entwined.

Building a game that people actively want to play should be the only target in view. Do that and you can bring more people in. Nobody is going to be induced to come play UO because fewer shards with more people makes them go 'whoa, that was what held me back all these years'.

They won't be using those exact words, but they will be more likely to remain than otherwise simply due to a more engaging population. The alternative, which I can cite from personal experience was when I left because "whoa, I'm leaving UO because this shard is dead and boring".

 

[Smoot]

Fair enough but where do the people fit in that are contrary to exactly what you have said. What happens to those that want to stay on their home shard, period.....My point is you can not qualify the amount of people for or against this. You naturally side with those that agree with your theory.

Once again, just as a reminder, your words:

i agree, theres problems. like what if a group of 3 freinds all decided come back at the same time and found themselves on different shards. things would have to be decided, personally while i believe that diminishing shard populations are a huge problem with UO right now, id think it should be a last resort, the first, much easier transition would be to see the population change after a free to play format. i think that in itself would increase pop enough not to need shard mergers.

 

[Merus]

Not with my post?

With the entire thread... the option to transfer shards willingly already exists. Those who remain on their "dead" shards do so because they want to, not because that have no choice. Even the ability to do it for free exists, though it is limited to those with 14 year vet accounts... but even then... if you are willing to piecemeal items over and remake characters you can start on a new shard for free if you find a vet account to move items for you.

The ONLY reason threads like this exist is to force people to relocate. Popular theory would close down smaller shards and move them to more populated ones... I only point out that we could accomplish much of the same goal by forcing people off ATL onto other shards.

Personally I don't see any reasonable way to do it... what do you do with characters who exist on multiple shards if you consolidate? Even if you went to one east coast and one west coast... if you have 7 characters on each of those shards what happens to them all? How do you move player run towns and keep all their history? And all for what? You piss off a huge portion of your existing customer base on the chance that you might pick up a few returning players. Inactive accounts don't have houses... if they want to start on a new, more populated shard when they come back, that's awesome for them, let them get a couple transfer tokens and have at it. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. Heck, if you have been gone more than a couple years, there isn't even much point in transferring... your template and pretty well anything in your bank (unless you were a rares collector and stashed your horde in the bank) is most likely obsolete anyway... start a new character on a new shard and make some friends. But I certainly don't think you need to disrupt all the folks who are perfectly happy with the slower pace of the less active shards.

 

[Lord Nabin]

*pokes his head in the tavern door for a minute then shuts the door and moves on down to the next Tavern*

 

[Plant Elemental]

Well, I'm on the fence with this issue. I love Catskills, but the reason I moved from Legends to Catskills was because of the lack of people on Legends. I don't like dead shards, nor do I like busy, hectic, highly populated ones. So Catskills fits me perfectly.
If they were to tell me that Catskills was going to close within a year, I would probably be very angry at first, but I would eventually come to accept it, and perhaps even be eager to try out a new shard, create a new shard history, and make new friends.
The bad part, is that there is no way to move your houses. Would there be any way to move my castle, Zento 18x18, New Magicnia C1 house, and Beach Island vacation villa? I couldn't possibly think of a way to do it.
Houses are probably the reason that UO is still here with paying customers. It's also the reason why mergers have not happened yet and probably never will. Because there's no answer.

 

[OREOGL]

part of the problem is they turned cross sharding into a cash cow. if they gave free transfer tokens out once in awhile for gifts people could jump to the shard of their choice, or in other cases jump back.

 

[King Greg]

This Topic Again?*Shakes Head*

 

[Lorddog]

merge merge merge ...
oh not my shard!?!?!

(ok whatever)
merge merge merge...

 

[Ender]

With the entire thread... the option to transfer shards willingly already exists. Those who remain on their "dead" shards do so because they want to, not because that have no choice. Even the ability to do it for free exists, though it is limited to those with 14 year vet accounts... but even then... if you are willing to piecemeal items over and remake characters you can start on a new shard for free if you find a vet account to move items for you.

The ONLY reason threads like this exist is to force people to relocate. Popular theory would close down smaller shards and move them to more populated ones... I only point out that we could accomplish much of the same goal by forcing people off ATL onto other shards.

Personally I don't see any reasonable way to do it... what do you do with characters who exist on multiple shards if you consolidate? Even if you went to one east coast and one west coast... if you have 7 characters on each of those shards what happens to them all? How do you move player run towns and keep all their history? And all for what? You piss off a huge portion of your existing customer base on the chance that you might pick up a few returning players. Inactive accounts don't have houses... if they want to start on a new, more populated shard when they come back, that's awesome for them, let them get a couple transfer tokens and have at it. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. Heck, if you have been gone more than a couple years, there isn't even much point in transferring... your template and pretty well anything in your bank (unless you were a rares collector and stashed your horde in the bank) is most likely obsolete anyway... start a new character on a new shard and make some friends. But I certainly don't think you need to disrupt all the folks who are perfectly happy with the slower pace of the less active shards.

Yeah, people that have had an account OPEN for 14 years can transfer for free. But those that don't.... They should totally have the option to transfer for free if they happened to choose a dead shard. And that was all I said in my post. Nothing about closing shards.

 

[Poo]

I addressed this in my original post. And hey, relax. We're just having a discussion.

im perfectly relaxed.
i was just participating in the discussion, like you asked.
if you dont want people to discuss your discussion then you should call it something else, no?

 

[Ashlynn_L]

Doesn't solve the underlying problem. It just makes it look like you did because all shards now say "medium" or "high" for a while. That is until they don't anymore.

And then what - another round of shard mergers?

 

[Kirthag]

With the entire thread...

*ahem* NOT the entire thread.

This is a discussion of thought. Is not like it is going to happen.

 

[King Greg]

Just toss us all A free Transfer token per character per server . May as well, otherwise we just keep buying them off those vendors that have a never ending supply of them *Shakes head*

 

[Kael]

Wonder how people's opinions of shard merges would go if Broadsword started to assign resources based of percentages. For instance, if Atlantic has 80 percent of the population (and produces the same in revenue) they get 80 percent of EM events, bug support, GM support (I know..haha) ect ect.

 

[THP]

ALAS there is a small minority of folks/guilds that milk the champs / afk farm the quiet shards dry- Un-opposed...so they will fight tooth and nail to stop this ever happening...hence some of the replies u read...ksara

 

[cazador]

Never going to happen! Too much RL$ is made farming dead shards 24/7..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THP]

Never going to happen! Too much RL$ is made farming dead shards 24/7..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agreed above....this is the main reason....it wont happen..yes yes housing and history gets a mention...but the farming is the real issue and the folks/guilds that do it are not gonna give it up....[end].

 

[Deraj]

Doesn't solve the underlying problem. It just makes it look like you did because all shards now say "medium" or "high" for a while. That is until they don't anymore.

And then what - another round of shard mergers?

I agree with you about mergers not solving the underlying problems, which I would argue are primarily gameplay issues. But even with revamps in needed areas, will UO ever achieve its old populations levels ever again? If not, then yes, mergers may be necessary.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

I addressed this in my original post. And hey, relax. We're just having a discussion.

What you call a discussion I call beating a dead horse with the exact same invalid points that have been brought up in the past.

Do you even realize or understand that all four of your PRO points are only theory and highly debatable while your CON points are 100% actuality and monster issues for damn near every single person on every smaller shard?

1) The same amount of people condensed in one area does not equal higher population. Nor will it guarantee the addition of anymore new players.
2) Economies on the more populated shards are already solid and robust. Adding more players will do nothing to help or change them. Everybody and their brother that wants to trade items has been able to do so quite easily for many years with xfers and shields. Anyone unable to afford an xfer is not dealing large enough to affect any economy anyways, duh...
3) What at all do you actually know about UO administration? Seriously?
4) The large shards already have the type of community that works well with their size while the small shards have a different type of community that works well for their size. Making one or two more large shards will not change this one bit. Certain players prefer certain types of communities.
Who are you to say that everyone has to be jammed together into only large shards?

 

[Merus]

*ahem* NOT the entire thread.

This is a discussion of thought. Is not like it is going to happen.

Yes, the entire thread. Would we be having a discussion about closing a shard if there was literally not a single player there? No. Any discussion (theory or not) of shard mergers or consolidation is a discussion of forced relocation.

 

[Giggles]

I'll admit I haven't read every post in this thread... but I don't feel shard mergers will ever happen in Ultima Online. This is a item based game that has housing, any change that would make folks lose all or part of what they have, all the way down to the location would be a injustice to the players.

I play multiple servers and don't really have a home these days. I like playing with people, but I also enjoy hiding on "dead" shards sometimes when I just want to grind/farm something and be left alone. Every shard has a history, and community, a purpose. there is no need to delete any of them.

People seem to forget how much fun it can be to take a couple of friends and start somewhere new. If you are unhappy with your shard, or you get tired of seeing the same 10 people, branch out a little. When I exclusively played catskills I got pretty bored with the same shard politics and drama (there are also many good people on catskills, but as I said, boredom kicked in). When I started branching out I have met several awesome people and have had more fun then I have had in years. I had no clue there was a huge world outside of my little server with hundreds of people to meet and have fun with.

In closing, leave shards alone, maybe brainstorm ways to make transfers more available to people. Or hell even making the new player experience less painful so it isnt a hassle to start somewhere fresh without needing xfers.

 

[sablestorm]

#1 Con - Convincing a good percentage of a very loyal fan base that keeps this game alive to depart from the game thereby dooming the game to closure.

I understand the wishful thinking, but the reason UO has lived this long is because of that very loyal fan base and what they have built up these 18 years. The Dev Team is smart to protect that. Consolidate the shards and suddenly you convince members of this lifeblood of UO to move on from the game and suddenly UO is no longer profitable. Trial accounts do not finance UO and the wishful thinking that all these new trial accounts will stick around from shard population, that is already playing out with Atlantic. Shard merger is already playing out with shard transfer and Atlantic. Those in favor of these shard merger threads, transfer to Atlantic. Case closed, end of story. If you force shard mergers, it will be case closed end of game.

What you need to realize is the current UO demographic is a much older one with much older behavior. When we were young, we were much more interested in hanging out with our friends and partying. In UO terms that means going dungeon crawling and adventuring together. As you get older your focus changes, however. Instead of going out clubbing, we do work and maintenance on our houses. In UO, lawn mowing and laundry are replaced with gardening (or other daily collections) and tailoring (more generally crafting). Instead of going out to clubs or movies with a big group of friends, we focus more on entertainment at home. Our watching TV or Netflix or DVDs is like solo hunting new content in UO. When it is time to pick the kids up from school, you can stop the DVD and resume it later. Same with UO, when it is time to pick the kids up from school, recall to your house and resume hunting later.

These threads are like the midlife crisis. You're pining for the fun and partying you use to have but you absolutely cannot force your friends away from their spouses, kids, and homes they have bought just so you can party like it's 1999. If you tried to force them, they'd just phase you out as a friend. Same with UO. Force shard mergers, and the loyal players will phase it out of their lives.

 

[Deraj]

1) The same amount of people condensed in one area does not equal higher population. Nor will it guarantee the addition of anymore new players.

Higher population per shard. I am not suggesting that consolidation will cause players to appear out of thin air.

2) Economies on the more populated shards are already solid and robust. Adding more players will do nothing to help or change them. Everybody and their brother that wants to trade items has been able to do so quite easily for many years with xfers and shields. Anyone unable to afford an xfer is not dealing large enough to affect any economy anyways, duh...

Is this the way it ought to be? Or is what we have been forced to resort to due to falling populations across shards?

3) What at all do you actually know about UO administration? Seriously?

Less shards wouldn't be easier to manage?

4) The large shards already have the type of community that works well with their size while the small shards have a different type of community that works well for their size. Making one or two more large shards will not change this one bit. Certain players prefer certain types of communities.

Yes, some of the shards do have a different kind of community: no community. And no, those "communities" do not work well for their size.

Who are you to say that everyone has to be jammed together into only large shards?

I am a player that is suggesting an idea on an Ultima Online discussion board for the purposes of discussion, nothing more.

 

[Deraj]

Yes, the entire thread. Would we be having a discussion about closing a shard if there was literally not a single player there? No. Any discussion (theory or not) of shard mergers or consolidation is a discussion of forced relocation.

At what population level should a shard ever be closed down? If there is still one player left with 5 castles jam-packed with his holiday gift collections, should the shard remain open?

 

[Deraj]

Every shard has a history, and community, a purpose. there is no need to delete any of them.

I disagree. Some shards had a history, community, and purpose. But people give a shard its character, not pixels nor story posts from 2006. Even then, the real concern are the pixels and virtual wealth.

 

[Deraj]

I understand the wishful thinking, but the reason UO has lived this long is because of that very loyal fan base and what they have built up these 18 years. The Dev Team is smart to protect that. Consolidate the shards and suddenly you convince members of this lifeblood of UO to move on from the game and suddenly UO is no longer profitable. Trial accounts do not finance UO and the wishful thinking that all these new trial accounts will stick around from shard population, that is already playing out with Atlantic. Shard merger is already playing out with shard transfer and Atlantic. Those in favor of these shard merger threads, transfer to Atlantic. Case closed, end of story. If you force shard mergers, it will be case closed end of game.

What you need to realize is the current UO demographic is a much older one with much older behavior. When we were young, we were much more interested in hanging out with our friends and partying. In UO terms that means going dungeon crawling and adventuring together. As you get older your focus changes, however. Instead of going out clubbing, we do work and maintenance on our houses. In UO, lawn mowing and laundry are replaced with gardening (or other daily collections) and tailoring (more generally crafting). Instead of going out to clubs or movies with a big group of friends, we focus more on entertainment at home. Our watching TV or Netflix or DVDs is like solo hunting new content in UO. When it is time to pick the kids up from school, you can stop the DVD and resume it later. Same with UO, when it is time to pick the kids up from school, recall to your house and resume hunting later.

These threads are like the midlife crisis. You're pining for the fun and partying you use to have but you absolutely cannot force your friends away from their spouses, kids, and homes they have bought just so you can party like it's 1999. If you tried to force them, they'd just phase you out as a friend. Same with UO. Force shard mergers, and the loyal players will phase it out of their lives.

If my original post is a mid-life crisis, yours is a curmudgeonly old man ordering the kids to get off his lawn. Is UO condemned to being chained to its pixels and memories of better days?

 

[Merus]

At what population level should a shard ever be closed down? If there is still one player left with 5 castles jam-packed with his holiday gift collections, should the shard remain open?

I would turn this around and ask at what point does someone else playing this game the way they enjoy have to impact the way you play? I think the fact that these slow shards have players is evidence that there is a market for UO customers who do not want to be on a hugely populated shard. I fail to see the argument for alienating that population in favor of those who do not currently play UO and would have the option to play a more populated shard if the choose to return at some point in the future. Leave the 1 guy with his castles alone... He isn't hurting anyone else's ability to choose their playstyle.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Higher population per shard. I am not suggesting that consolidation will cause players to appear out of thin air.



Is this the way it ought to be? Or is what we have been forced to resort to due to falling populations across shards?



Less shards wouldn't be easier to manage?



Yes, some of the shards do have a different kind of community: no community. And no, those "communities" do not work well for their size.



I am a player that is suggesting an idea on an Ultima Online discussion board for the purposes of discussion, nothing more.

Purposes of discussion?
Every single point that has been made in this thread against any of your ideas has been met with criticism and 100% rejection by you. You have not attempted to consider or agree with one of them. That is not a discussion in my book lol.

You just don't get it.

When you total up all of the players that have chosen to stay on lesser populated shards it equals a large % of the overall player base. If you force them to move for no other reason than consolidation most of them will simply pack it in and quit. How is decreasing the player base and forcing the rest of the population to jam into a select few shards good for the game again?
Economy? Lmao

 

[Deraj]

I would turn this around and ask at what point does someone else playing this game the way they enjoy have to impact the way you play? I think the fact that these slow shards have players is evidence that there is a market for UO customers who do not want to be on a hugely populated shard.

I respect your opinion, but come now, a market for dead shards in an old, obscure MMO? You know as well as I do that our hypothetical omega man is just attached to his pixels, nothing more. His playstyle does not concern me anymore than mine concerns him when he comes to these very same forums and suggest that I should be the one to move and not him.

I fail to see the argument for alienating that population in favor of those who do not currently play UO and would have the option to play a more populated shard if the choose to return at some point in the future. Leave the 1 guy with his castles alone... He isn't hurting anyone else's ability to choose their playstyle.

Now examine the hidden cost. What about players have already been alienated by past development and diminished communities? Consider the heavily diminished population on your dead shard. Where did those people go? Did their playstyles matter?

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

I respect your opinion, but come now, a market for dead shards in an old, obscure MMO? You know as well as I do that our hypothetical omega man is just attached to his pixels, nothing more. His playstyle does not concern me anymore than mine concerns him when he comes to these very same forums and suggest that I should be the one to move and not him.



Now examine the hidden cost. What about players have already been alienated by past development and diminished communities? Consider the heavily diminished population on your dead shard. Where did those people go? Did their playstyles matter?

Those people chose to move to a more populated shard or simply just tired of UO in general and quit. Shard mergers would not have kept them in the game at all.

 

[Merus]

I respect your opinion, but come now, a market for dead shards in an old, obscure MMO? You know as well as I do that our hypothetical omega man is just attached to his pixels, nothing more. His playstyle does not concern me anymore than mine concerns him when he comes to these very same forums and suggest that I should be the one to move and not him.



Now examine the hidden cost. What about players have already been alienated by past development and diminished communities? Consider the heavily diminished population on your dead shard. Where did those people go? Did their playstyles matter?

Yes, there is a market for it... People continue to shell out $10 a month per account to participate in it. I am not advocating that anyone be forced to move, I only pointed out that people on populated shards seem quick to propose other people move in order to create more "full" shards but don't seem to like the idea of being forced to move themselves to further the same goal.

There may be some players who elected to stop playing because their shard of preference did not have a large enough community to support their playstyle... But those same people would have quit if they were told they HAD to move too... I can say this because the option to move is already there and they quit anyway!

Anyone who wants a larger community to play with can already get it at the same "moving cost" (transferring items and finding a new house) as a forced relocation. Why would we need to then force that moving cost onto players who don't want it.

 

[THP]

Yes, the entire thread. Would we be having a discussion about closing a shard if there was literally not a single player there? No. Any discussion (theory or not) of shard mergers or consolidation is a discussion of forced relocation.

But there would be people there...farming it dry ...unopposed and most likey AFK....alas ive asked the same questions many times....and this is the root answer....folks/guilds are farming the quite shards then selling it using shard shields on the more populated shards....this is why it wont happen as the same people will fight untill there nails are bleeding to keep it as it is.....easy gold/rl cash wins this battle

 

[Deraj]

Purposes of discussion?
Every single point that has been made in this thread against any of your ideas has been met with criticism and 100% rejection by you. You have not attempted to consider or agree with one of them. That is not a discussion in my book lol.

I don't have access to your book, just a dictionary. I wasn't aware that providing a defense to my ideas disqualified this as a discussion. In any case what's your point? Also, since a discussion apparently requires the participants to agree with the other's points, which points of mine do you agree with?

You just don't get it.

When you total up all of the players that have chosen to stay on lesser populated shards it equals a large % of the overall player base. If you force them to move for no other reason than consolidation most of them will simply pack it in and quit. How is decreasing the player base and forcing the rest of the population to jam into a select few shards good for the game again?
Economy? Lmao

Now it's my turn to ask how you could possibly know this. What do you know about the population of "lesser populated shards" as a percentage of the player base? I have acknowledged, both in my OP and in a later post, that I can only speculate and would have to leave it to the devs to sort out which shards would close down to provide a more balanced and reasonable shard population. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be packed into Atlantic, or even that every shard needs to be like Atlantic.

Those people chose to move to a more populated shard or simply just tired of UO in general and quit. Shard mergers would not have kept them in the game at all.

Yes, and who is going to defend their playstyles? Do they have any more right to not having to move to a populated shard than dead-sharders do to not being forced off their desolate land?

 

[Deraj]

Yes, there is a market for it... People continue to shell out $10 a month per account to participate in it. I am not advocating that anyone be forced to move, I only pointed out that people on populated shards seem quick to propose other people move in order to create more "full" shards but don't seem to like the idea of being forced to move themselves to further the same goal.

Aren't you? Why does your preference of a dead shard override my preference of a reasonably populated shard? Do I not have as much right to play a populated Napa than you a desolate one?

There may be some players who elected to stop playing because their shard of preference did not have a large enough community to support their playstyle... But those same people would have quit if they were told they HAD to move too... I can say this because the option to move is already there and they quit anyway!

Yes, your complaint is that dead-sharders would be forced to move or quit. What is the difference with a player like me, whose choice was exactly the same? Force to move to a higher pop shard, or quit?

Anyone who wants a larger community to play with can already get it at the same "moving cost" (transferring items and finding a new house) as a forced relocation. Why would we need to then force that moving cost onto players who don't want it.

Why force players who want a reasonably populated shard to move?

 

[Merus]

Aren't you? Why does your preference of a dead shard override my preference of a reasonably populated shard? Do I not have as much right to play a populated Napa than you a desolate one?



Yes, your complaint is that dead-sharders would be forced to move or quit. What is the difference with a player like me, whose choice was exactly the same? Force to move to a higher pop shard, or quit?



Why force players who want a reasonably populated shard to move?

I'm am not the one proposing anyone be forced to do anything. I proposed that given the choice of playing a full shard or a slow shard, individual players are able to decide for themselves. If you want to play a "full" shard... But your shard of preference isn't "full" anymore you have the option to move... But I disagree with the idea that everyone else should be forced to move with you. Likewise if the shard you play on has gotten too crowded you should have the option to move to a lower population shard.

My whole point is that the options already exist to play with the size of a community that suits you... And players have made their choice. If everyone wanted to play on full shards, these threads wouldn't exist. I advocate for leaving the choice to the individual player... Not forcing anyone to move.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

...

1. automatically transfer inactive accounts to a random remaining shard.
2. active accounts be given a choice of which remaining shard to go to, or random if the timer runs out.
3. houses would be transferred automatically (full) and randoming placed on open plots in the remaining shards

...

Smoot's first suggestion is an intriguing idea. The OP had a concern that returning players would be lost forever if they came back to a dead shard. What if a returning player was given a one time option to return to their home shard or an alternate shard. I can see where this might be abused if proper checks weren't implemented. I think the option should only be offered to accounts that are re-activating after X months of inactivity and there should be no houses on the account. Existing players should provide their own means to transfer if they wished to change shards.

Do you know anyone that wants to transfer off Atlantic?

I would never want to MOVE TO Atlantic. I like my low population shard even though the ping is not the best. If I want to farm a spawn on Sonoma, chances are I can go there and fight because no one is there. Just last night I logged onto another shard to replenish my gold on said shard but my favorite hunting spot was already occupied by someone else.

 

[Duncan McDermott]

I am against mergers, but I am not opposed to consolidation.

I would suggest all shards be closed and 3 or 4 new ones be opened. Old shards -including Atlantic- are shut down after 6 months or so. Everyone starts on a clean landscape. Everyone gets to xfer their characters to the new shards on the same day at the same hour. Bring whatever junk you want. All runes xferred are erased. Everyone gets an equal chance at placing a house.

This idea just makes me cringe. The thought of all the lag of everyone logging in and trying to place a house at the same time is not feasible. I still remember what it was like when the game first opened. So many players logging on for the first time crippled the game. Roll backs were a common, everyday affair. I just don't see this as being a workable option. I like the overall idea but the working concept and UO's history just don't seem to be able to pull it off.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Yes, your complaint is that dead-sharders would be forced to move or quit. What is the difference with a player like me, whose choice was exactly the same? Force to move to a higher pop shard, or quit?

I love your statement here. You came back to UO and did not like the population of your home shard. You then had a CHOICE to make move, stay on a lower populated shard or leave UO. Based on YOUR PLAY STYLE you DECIDED to move to a more populated shard.

IMHO YOU are a very SELFISH person and you want to FORCE everyone to play UO based on YOUR PLAY STYLE. YOU had a CHOICE and YOU DECIDED to move but YOU want to FORCE people to like YOUR PLAY STYLE by closing their shard and taking away their CHOICE to PLAY THEIR STYLE of UO. People on lower populated shards have the very same choice you have but in YOUR OPINION you want to force them to move thus taking away their choice. So based on YOUR OPINION I play on Baja (west coast) Shard, which West Coast Shard are you going to FORCE people to move to, East Coast Shard are not an option. I bing all West Coast Shards 16ms and on very good days 90-100 to East Coast Shards. How does a history of a shard go away even if nobody is there? Have you ever heard of a thing called ghost towns, strange thing about them is nobody lives there but their history is still there, just because you don't like their history doesn't make it any less of a value.

Lets look at this on a pure dollar decision by asking 2, yes only 2 questions because EA/Broadsword is a business run by business people.
#1 What is the cost of running all these shards? It costs the same to run these shards as it would to run fewer shards.
#2 What would be the cost to close shards? UO could very well be put on the chopping block along with all the people at Broadsword. Do you really believe all those players that you are trying to forced to move to a shard of your choosing are still going to want to play UO based on your play style and not theirs. Sorry this is a very bad business plan that just cost UO money so for allowing this UO is no longer profitable and now we will save all the cost of UO. UO will be closing its doors in 90 days. if you do not think this is a very strong possibility then I am sorry for you and IMHO you are willing to risk this based on how you think UO should/should not be played.

I CHOSE NOT to play UO based on YOUR PLAT STYLE but based on MY PLAY STYLE and if FORCED to chose then I take option #3 and will be closing all my accounts. This is what happens in the RL world when you force people to live their life according to your rules so why would I chose to play a game based on your rules, I WILL NOT. I, as do many others, play UO for fun and just because you think your play style is more fun than mine is very narrow minded of you, you made your bed now live with it and quit trying to force your opinion down everyone's throat.

 

[Ender]

I would never want to MOVE TO Atlantic. I like my low population shard even though the ping is not the best. If I want to farm a spawn on Sonoma, chances are I can go there and fight because no one is there. Just last night I logged onto another shard to replenish my gold on said shard but my favorite hunting spot was already occupied by someone else.

Well good because I never suggested forcing people to move.

 

[Merlin]

I would never want to MOVE TO Atlantic. I like my low population shard even though the ping is not the best. If I want to farm a spawn on Sonoma, chances are I can go there and fight because no one is there. Just last night I logged onto another shard to replenish my gold on said shard but my favorite hunting spot was already occupied by someone else.

Because God forbid you might have to play with someone else.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Because God forbid you might have to play with someone else.

Because God forbid you would be FORCED to play UO based on someone's opinion on how UO should/should not be played. Here's an idea go play UO the way you like to play it and leave everybody else alone.

 

[Keira]

I already did a Shard Consolidation. I consolidated over to Shroud of the Avatar : Forsaken Virtues.

Ultima here bas become really no-ultima. Without Richard Garriott's stories and lore, Ultima Online is really ended up being nothing.

I have a Castle on the Lake Austin shard sitting there just collecting dust (I have not cancelled my account yet). I cannot I say I have faith with Broadsword to make things more interesting. Stygian Abyss and High Seas were interesting but really killed the entertainment of living my virtual life here.

I have been extremely happy with the community and direction Shroud is going. Hanging out and adventuring with Lord British makes all the difference.

 

[Tina Small]

I play on 3 shards. I play on Atlantic, a high-population shard. I play on Catskills, a shard I would characterize as "quiet" and Napa Valley still, a shard which is unarguably dead, so in this respect my bases are covered. But, this proposal isn't to improve my personal gaming experience, but rather the game as a whole. I am only playing the armchair dev and speculating on why I think that low-pop shards hurt this game, and what a solution which I think would have the lowest possible impact.

Why do you still play on Napa and Catskills?