Shard populations

[Herp!]

weve talked about this many times.... shards cannot be consolidated because that would stop the scripters milking the empty shards dry !!!! aka like minax ...or the harrower un-opposed...etc ...etc forget it... all u will get is posts about history being ruined when they mean they cant leave afk's milking drops with no-one else around..

have a great UO day....

I mean... Some of us just do those things without scripts and enjoy it. You really can't blame scripters for everything anymore, plenty of people running auto pot & tinker trap macros on the very legal UOAssist and loop macros using programmable keyboards that couldn't be traced without just banning anyone who owns one. No scripting needed anymore. I understand the problem, I know that everyone seems to think that scripters are just destroying the economy... but in reality, there's only a couple people that actually script combat anymore. Firstly, because it's far too risky to legitimately always react to everything perfectly at the same interval due to journal reading scripts. Second, no one is buying their goods anyway, so there is no real reason to do it. People only buy rares now, everything else, people just farm themselves.

I'm pretty certain that every person in the game that has done revamped Despise, just hides and afks the boss. I afk Shadowguard by using double tamer with a friend. There is literally no reason to blame scripters anymore, if you wanna blame someone, blame every single person including yourself, then blame Broadsword. We are all guilty of utilizing time frames and other knowledge to do Harrower, spawns, and everything else unopposed.

 

[Thrakkar]

shards cannot be consolidated

You're absolutely right! It can't be done. That's why it will never happen. Just like F2P isn't going to happen as has been stated so many times in the past...


...endless journey anyone?

 

[BeaIank]

I do love me some killing Harrower right after server up without being pestered, yes.
And Despise is too damn boring, so I of course I afk it while indulging myself with some good rum, watching bloody Andros die.
And if you really need minax drops, go kill captains. It is fun, challenging and nets you 20+ minax drops per hour. I got 64 myself yesterday morning.

 

[THP]

Hey have a great UO day however u spend it ingame....

 

[Fridgster]

Why do we need to consolidate shards? Just use shard shields... oh oops never mind.

 

[cazador]

I am 100% for shard consolidation. I have probably more than most people to play this game and I would gladly give it all up to have a game with what appears to be an active player base.

That's just crazy!! Give away all your pixels?!?! how would you ever survive! Shard mergers can't work, because we have servers that are only capable of holding 30/40 players. Mesanna is hosting the server out of her house on DSL...


....

 

[cazador]

You're absolutely right! It can't be done. That's why it will never happen. Just like F2P isn't going to happen as has been stated so many times in the past...


...endless journey anyone?

Last I saw Messana said that FTP is coming, it's all about re-inventing a new player experience for when that magical mystical steam launch happens. As per the last pvp "balance" I'm sure they will mess that up royally too.


....

 

[Fridgster]

I don't understand the argument for consolidation. Do you really think people will continue to play if you shut their shard down? Of course not. If they wanted to be on a heavily populated shard they would be. There are plenty of ways to get to another shard. The only thing consolidation would do is destroy the game. They would never be able to gain new members to replace those that would leave. Terrible terrible idea for everyone involved.

 

[Lord Frodo]

weve talked about this many times.... shards cannot be consolidated because that would stop the scripters milking the empty shards dry !!!! aka like minax ...or the harrower un-opposed...etc ...etc forget it... all u will get is posts about history being ruined when they mean they cant leave afk's milking drops with no-one else around..

have a great UO day....

Sir you are full of **** if you think everybody that prefers a lower populated shard is a scripter.

 

[petemage]

Sir you are full of **** if you think everybody that prefers a lower populated shard is a scripter.

I just keep wondering every time I read your quick-tempered posts: Are you talking to people on the street in the same way all the time?

 

[Lord Frodo]

I just keep wondering every time I read your quick-tempered posts: Are you talking to people on the street in the same way all the time?

 

[Herp!]

I just keep wondering every time I read your quick-tempered posts: Are you talking to people on the street in the same way all the time?

That's how I treat people on the street, especially when they ask me for things and I don't know them. But that's not really a quick tempered post... He simply stated his opinion, which I believe is more likely to be fact considering I am one of the people on the smaller shards that doesn't script. I hear that opinions are like anuses, we all have one. No one complains that I have an anus or that I fart, so why complain about opinions, no matter how "quick-tempered" and rude you think it is? You are essentially doing exactly what you are accusing him of.

 

[petemage]

I must have missed the day when saying "you are full of ****" (and we all know what that means) became a total intelligent and valid argument when disagreeing about someone's opinion. But well, let's get this sorted out officially and see if it's acceptable behaviour

 

[Lord Frodo]

LOL So telling people that they are cheaters and scripters are totally acceptable behaviour. And yes if someone walked up to me and accused me of stealing I would tell them they were full of **** too but I take it you would just say oh thank you sir yes I am.

 

[Herp!]

I must have missed the day when saying "you are full of ****" (and we all know what that means) became a total intelligent and valid argument when disagreeing about someone's opinion. But well, let's get this sorted out officially and see if it's acceptable behaviour

It most definitely is acceptable behaviour. He did not directly badger anyone, he's not back in here cussing, he censored his own post... where's the problem? Yes, I too grew up in a home that cussing was disallowed, and I too grew up in a time where it was more frowned upon. But nowadays, you can't really frown upon cussing unless it's at work. Sorry times changed

 

[Pawain]

I must have missed the day when saying "you are full of ****" (and we all know what that means) became a total intelligent and valid argument when disagreeing about someone's opinion. But well, let's get this sorted out officially and see if it's acceptable behaviour

**** = love

 

[THP]

enjoy your own UO!!!!

script do your scripts .. treasure hunters do your maps... cooks do your thing....muahhahhaaa

 

[Tanivar]

Some speak from where the food goes in, some speak from where it goes out.

 

[Armageddon]

Shards cant be merged BUT they could and should be linked! Not all of them together just in pairs. The shards would be left intact and there would just be a "shardgate" on each. You walk through the gate to insta transfer to the linked shard. For example there would be a gate between Pacific and Napa, Oceania and Sakura, Europa and Drach, etc... That way two shards can share their populations between each other whilst still remaining completely intact with all their houses etc...

 

[Lord Frodo]

Shards cant be merged BUT they could and should be linked! Not all of them together just in pairs. The shards would be left intact and there would just be a "shardgate" on each. You walk through the gate to insta transfer to the linked shard. For example there would be a gate between Pacific and Napa, Oceania and Sakura, Europa and Drach, etc... That way two shards can share their populations between each other whilst still remaining completely intact with all their houses etc...

UO will lose money from Xfer Tokens, players will have to delete chars on the shard they are going to. In theory it all sounds great and so easy to do but in fact players will lose homes/chars/community. It does not cost UO anything to maintain all the servers so what is the big deal with all this merge BS. You want a more populated shard then by all means Xfer yourself to Atl and leave the rest of us to play UO the way we want to play UO. How hard is that to understand? Merging will not save UO I do not care how much you spin into it in fact it could very easily kill UO when peoples shards get messed up and they quit. Why do people want to force their playstyle onto others?

 

[THP]

Hey besides everyone can own a castle.....or i should say everyone should own a castle or does own a castle.....just play atlantic and another shard...simple!!....castle solution solved...maybe harder on great lakes, chezzy and europa.... but very very do-able and free to not much gold in all honesty...and yah u can own 3 houses on 3 accounts on 3 shards and rotate them paying just 1 sub per month......whatever....

Hey each to there own....Play ya own game....enjoy UO the way u like it!!

 

[Swordsman]

Possibly the most ridiculous thing ive ever seen posted on any mmorpg gaming forum ever.

No online mmorpg should ever consider this as a sane route to go down.

If you want to talk about online mmorpg, I can tell you, when UO started the online mmorpg 18 years ago, it allowed casual players to complete all fighting contents alone, no matter PVP or PVM fighting. Now, you said this is ridiculous !

Grinding all those bosses in a tiny room is your so-called route of online mmorpg. People are still playing UO is because of the passion at 18 years ago, not your route.

 

[The Craftsman]

Now, you said this is ridiculous !

It is.

 

[Lord Frodo]

If you want to talk about online mmorpg, I can tell you, when UO started the online mmorpg 18 years ago, it allowed casual players to complete all fighting contents alone, no matter PVP or PVM fighting. Now, you said this is ridiculous !

So as a casual player what template were you using to kill dragons

 

[Merus]

So as a casual player what template were you using to kill dragons

Bard/mage... back in the day when you didn't need to maintain line of sight I could kill dragons solo faster than I could loot them...

 

[Thrakkar]

Bard/mage... back in the day when you didn't need to maintain line of sight I could kill dragons solo faster than I could loot them...

Getting provo to some meaningful level where you could provo dragons meant a little bit more dedication to that skill than just being casual, IMHO.
But let's get a little less casual: What did you provo onto the ancient wyrm in destard 3?

Fun fact: Back in the days my bard had enticement

 

[Lord Frodo]

Bard/mage... back in the day when you didn't need to maintain line of sight I could kill dragons solo faster than I could loot them...

A Bard/Mage was not a casual player.

 

[Merus]

Getting provo to some meaningful level where you could provo dragons meant a little bit more dedication to that skill than just being casual, IMHO.
But let's get a little less casual: What did you provo onto the ancient wyrm in destard 3?

Fun fact: Back in the days my bard had enticement

Why on Gods green earth would I go down to the AW when I was making gold hand over fist in the bowl? I hired another player to loot gold and go back and forth to the bank. My half was over 100k per hour... which in 1999 was a bucket load!

As far as the casual player part... sure it was (at least the bard part). Music is almost as easy to gain to GM as meditation. Back then most everyone was just out playing and gaining skill as you played. Sure it prolly took me a few months of casual play to get where I could manage destard with no problem, but it was still THE place to go from 90-100 skill. All that gold funded the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 damn regs it took to GM several characters magery and resists.

 

[Merus]

A Bard/Mage was not a casual player.

Sure it was. Back then the vast majority of players had 1 or 2 characters that they played. I had a pvp mage and a bard mage.

 

[Thrakkar]

Why on Gods green earth would I go down to the AW when I was making gold hand over fist in the bowl?

True, from a gold/hour point of view, this is financial suicide. But I was actually leaning towards the statement, which actually spawned this "casual"-conversation:

when UO started the online mmorpg 18 years ago, it allowed casual players to complete all fighting contents alone, no matter PVP or PVM fighting

Which is ridiculous, since the casual player just wearing a GM suit wouldn't be able to do all fighting content alone (which includes ancient wyrms )

 

[Slayvite]

Early UO with just GM equipment was easy, there were so many exploits back then if you knew what to look for.......how do you think most of us got rich? lol

 

[hungry4knowhow]

Why on Gods green earth would I go down to the AW when I was making gold hand over fist in the bowl? I hired another player to loot gold and go back and forth to the bank. My half was over 100k per hour... which in 1999 was a bucket load!

As far as the casual player part... sure it was (at least the bard part). Music is almost as easy to gain to GM as meditation. Back then most everyone was just out playing and gaining skill as you played. Sure it prolly took me a few months of casual play to get where I could manage destard with no problem, but it was still THE place to go from 90-100 skill. All that gold funded the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 damn regs it took to GM several characters magery and resists.

Nothing about this post says "I'm a casual player" nothing at all.

 

[Merus]

Nothing about this post says "I'm a casual player" nothing at all.

I guess that depends on how you define "casual player".

My definition is someone who does not have hours and hours and hours to play every day... that is not, nor has it ever been me.

In the limited amount of time that I spend in UO, I do play to be good at the things I choose to do.

If your definition of "casual player" is someone who logs in and mops around their house or the bank, just chillin till its time to log off, then you would be correct that I am not a casual player.

Back in the day I had one account and 2 characters that I played. No warrior, no crafter, no fisher, no tamer... I pvped on a mage, and pvmed on a bard. I am not sure that I have much more time to play now, than I did then, but I have upgraded my game to get more out of that time... 4 accounts and a gaming PC with 4 monitors... perhaps that makes me less of a "casual player"... or maybe it just means I have more disposable income now...

 

[Armageddon]

UO will lose money from Xfer Tokens, players will have to delete chars on the shard they are going to. In theory it all sounds great and so easy to do but in fact players will lose homes/chars/community. It does not cost UO anything to maintain all the servers so what is the big deal with all this merge BS. You want a more populated shard then by all means Xfer yourself to Atl and leave the rest of us to play UO the way we want to play UO. How hard is that to understand? Merging will not save UO I do not care how much you spin into it in fact it could very easily kill UO when peoples shards get messed up and they quit. Why do people want to force their playstyle onto others?

Ever heard of shard shields? They're losing money from them already. And xfers would still exist. Shards would only be linked in PAIRS not the all the shards linked together. Chars on the linked shard would be copied to it's partner shard so that no chars would need to be deleted. I never said it would be easy to do, but it is possible and unlike merging it won't kill shards off. In fact, it will make them stronger. Note that linking and merging are two entirely different things. Not everyone can play on Atl you know.

This isnt about forcing a play-style on anyone as the play-style would be exactly the same as it is now. Nothing would change except you'd have access to another shard via a gate and them to you. You could still play exactly how you want to. Forcing a play-style would be like, ummm, I dunno... introducing something as catastrophic for the game as Trammel? That would be forcing a play-style change. Linking shards is nothing of the sort.

 

[Herp!]

Ever heard of shard shields?

Yeah, I have. They aren't losing much money off those m8. Yes, a good 20% of the playerbase that's left has 14+ yr accounts. The other 80% of us are 0-13 years old due to the fact that the game is over half our age & we had to let our accounts close at a point... A lot of us also have multiple accounts that we haven't kept open for 14 years. Hell, I met a guy yesterday who's been playing for 3 months, JUST started playing. Your logic is bad.

To merge shards in any way, whether it be by "shard gate"(no offense, I've never heard a worse idea about this subject), instancing bosses to allow cross shard usage(similar to WoW battlegrounds, dungeons, and raids since Wrath), or any other way you could possibly think of, would destroy the game for a large amount of people. You cannot expect a developer to throw away the opinion of the bulk of their player base just to make those of you who don't want to be on Atl anymore but still want higher pop happy.

EDIT:
Came to mind as an afterthought, what would they do for Mugen/Siege in your special plan for pairing shards? You expect people that have one of the largest language barriers in the world to play together?

 

[Armageddon]

Yeah, I have. They aren't losing much money off those m8. Yes, a good 20% of the playerbase that's left has 14+ yr accounts. The other 80% of us are 0-13 years old due to the fact that the game is over half our age & we had to let our accounts close at a point... A lot of us also have multiple accounts that we haven't kept open for 14 years. Hell, I met a guy yesterday who's been playing for 3 months, JUST started playing. Your logic is bad.

To merge shards in any way, whether it be by "shard gate"(no offense, I've never heard a worse idea about this subject), instancing bosses to allow cross shard usage(similar to WoW battlegrounds, dungeons, and raids since Wrath), or any other way you could possibly think of, would destroy the game for a large amount of people. You cannot expect a developer to throw away the opinion of the bulk of their player base just to make those of you who don't want to be on Atl anymore but still want higher pop happy.

EDIT:
Came to mind as an afterthought, what would they do for Mugen/Siege in your special plan for pairing shards? You expect people that have one of the largest language barriers in the world to play together?

Oh yes they are. You do know that most transfers are done for shopping right? On Oceania especially there are just a couple of players who have a few shard shields but everyone gives them their stuff to sell on Atl and they xfer every few days back and forth. Even players who have 1 day old accounts can use shard shields via another player doing the xfer of goods for them. It happens all the time. If you think it's only 14 year vets who are benefiting from the shields you're very much mistaken.

Lets just get something clear. Linking is NOT merging. Linking is (you guessed it) providing a LINK between two individual shards which both remain intact. Merging is COMBINING two or more shards into ONE. They are two entirely different things. Stop calling linking merging just to suit your argument. I am NOT suggesting that shards should be merged. They actually would kill shards and lose the game many players. Linking would not.

As for Siege and Mugen, shards should be linked together based on their real world server locations to provide the best connection possible for players on the two shards. For example, East Coast US shards would ONLY be linked with other East Coast shards, West Coast only with other West Coast shards, and so on. The connection difference between Siege and Mugan would be too great to link them. This combined with the unique ruleset of those shards means that they should remain unlinked as they are now. After all, there are only two Siege ruleset shards and so they don't really need to be linked. The problem is that the rest of the population is spread too thin over too many "production" shards. As for the language barrier, again shards would be linked based on their real world locations so this would not be an issue. Even if they werent, there are ways to overcome a language barrier. Anyone remember SYSTRAN? UO has done it before and could do it again.

 

[Herp!]

After all, there are only two Siege ruleset shards and so they don't really need to be linked

After all, there are a bunch of production ruleset shards and so they don't really need to be linked. I can keep going at this all night. Link, merge, I don't care what you call it. You allow me to walk through a gate and leave Legends & land on Lake Austin, I log out on Lake Austin, game freaks out, I lose a char. Yes, I understand it's DOABLE. It isn't a matter of if it's doable with UO, it's a matter of the fact that they screw up the smallest crap, why would we trust them with something that could possibly result in lost items, chars, or more?

Oh yes they are. You do know that most transfers are done for shopping right? On Oceania especially there are just a couple of players who have a few shard shields but everyone gives them their stuff to sell on Atl and they xfer every few days back and forth. Even players who have 1 day old accounts can use shard shields via another player doing the xfer of goods for them. It happens all the time. If you think it's only 14 year vets who are benefiting from the shields you're very much mistaken.

As for this, I do understand that people do that, I do it as well. I suppose my argument was misguided here. I retract the statement about transfer tokens being lost money. Except for the fact that they kind of did ask for it by allowing me to just transfer money to any shard through the bank, pull it out, transfer more, pull it out, so on and so forth, and then just buy transfer tokens in game for gold. I'm a casual, but the few 5-6 hours I do play weekly make me between 100-200m... most likely owing to the fact that I play on a "dead" shard that all the link/merge fanboys are trying to destroy. I do not wish to be interrupted by 20 people coming to raid me while I solo spawns, Harry, or any other open world stuff. As is, I'm very happy the 5 man raiding party left my shard and I hope they never come back. Ganking was never something I found fun, I played 1997-2004 before taking a break & the bulk of that was spent doing 1v1, 2v2, and all out faction warfare pvp, where the fights were actually fair. No offense, I understand the urge to play with people, but if you can't just make friends on a small shard and have fun, go to Atl with the rest. And no, I'm not against pvp, I enjoy it greatly still. I just prefer not to get ganked & don't want people to have the ability to just walk in to my shard whenever they want without even using a token of ANY kind(at least shard shields are limited in the amount they give out to 1 a month) just to come poop on those of us who are just trying to have fun solo in the 30-45 min we have that day.

TL;DR
If you wanna come gank people on a smaller shard, you should have to pay or use a shield token.

 

[Lady Storm]

Herp has a point, too many are over looking sound reasons for a long time.......
Work hours for a lot of us have changed.
Spouce's come into picture and are not to be ignored.
Children have been born.. they now need more attention... or have reached that time where parents need to be more attentive.
Old age... where a nap is needed.
Finacial requirements have changed and the game comes way down the scale in requirements.

 

[cazador]

Bard/mage... back in the day when you didn't need to maintain line of sight I could kill dragons solo faster than I could loot them...

Parry swordsman. My first million was off Ancient Wyrms/Shadow Wyrms/White Wyrms. They also dropped sick Vanqs.


....

 

[Thrakkar]

Shards cant be merged BUT they could and should be linked! Not all of them together just in pairs. The shards would be left intact and there would just be a "shardgate" on each. You walk through the gate to insta transfer to the linked shard. For example there would be a gate between Pacific and Napa, Oceania and Sakura, Europa and Drach, etc... That way two shards can share their populations between each other whilst still remaining completely intact with all their houses etc...

Worthless effort. So instead of the propulation of a shard spreading across its own shard, you'll have both populations of the linked shards spreading across two shards. This changes nothing...

You want a more populated shard then by all means Xfer yourself to Atl and leave the rest of us to play UO the way we want to play UO.

That's a stupid and hollow argument and there are three major reasons for that:

• Ping gets worse: that doesn't need further elaboration
• Language barrier: Not everyone speaks english at all or at least on a level, where he or she could have fun with the game
• Different timezone: What's the point of moving to a higher populated shard, when I won't meet that much more people, because I can't play during peak hours of that shard?

In fact it could very easily kill UO when peoples shards get messed up and they quit.

Better die as one of the grandfathers of the MMORPG genre than living the miserable existance of a once big MMO now degenerated to a near-singleplayer-experience.

Why do people want to force their playstyle onto others?

This is not their playstyle. This is the playstyle for which this game has been conceived, developed and released. This playstysle is, what made it that popular.

 

[Lorddog]

I like the paired shards concept - just leave atlantic single, then 3 -5 group the others by population login count. so that the 2nd highest login shard is paired or tripled with the lowest 2 shards, etc.

then turn off certain aspects of the lower count shards like champs, doom etc

 

[Garen]

I'm all for merging Sonoma and Pacific.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Worthless effort. So instead of the propulation of a shard spreading across its own shard, you'll have both populations of the linked shards spreading across two shards. This changes nothing...


That's a stupid and hollow argument and there are three major reasons for that:

• Ping gets worse: that doesn't need further elaboration
• Language barrier: Not everyone speaks english at all or at least on a level, where he or she could have fun with the game
• Different timezone: What's the point of moving to a higher populated shard, when I won't meet that much more people, because I can't play during peak hours of that shard?

Better die as one of the grandfathers of the MMORPG genre than living the miserable existance of a once big MMO now degenerated to a near-singleplayer-experience.



This is not their playstyle. This is the playstyle for which this game has been conceived, developed and released. This playstysle is, what made it that popular.

So merging all the US Shards to one shard is some how going to have a better ping rate than transferring to Atl, yea right, LOL.
Language barrier what are you talking about how is having 1 US shard going to cause a language barrier, you going to make UO change the language we speak in the US to something else or do you think the language barrier between the east and west coast is to much to overcome.
So now you want this merged shard moved to your time zone so you are not bothered, we have people all over the world playing on US based shards so what is the big deal if people in the US are 3 hours apart.
My playstyle is playing on a more laid back adult shard not a rampaging childish mob, just listen to Atl Gen Chat and tell me there is not a bunch of fouled mouthed little kids running around there and you want that on just one US Shard, oh hell no.

Take off the rose colored glasses and smell the roses, merging shards will KILL UO not save it.

 

[Merus]

Broadsword could make a few strategic changes to steer players to a select few shards:

For NA based shards:
1. Designate Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific and Origin as "Live" shards. Remaining ones would be "Vintage" shards.
Vintage Shard:

• No transfers off, can still transfer to
• No EM events (except Siege)
• You may have 1 house on a Vintage Shard OR Siege

Live Shards:

• Increased live content: refocus some other shards EMs to do events on theses shards at various times throughout the week and day.
• Task at least 1 person as a floating live content moderator... random EM like content that just pops up without prior notification. City invasions, orc uprisings, etc.
• You may have 1 house on a Live shard

Ultimately the goal would be to make the live shards a little more interactive and exciting by focusing the available resources there. Those who wish to keep thier old places could do so.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Pawain]

Shards wont be merged.

The EA method is to create a new world for everyone, rename the game and then close the game 3 months later.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Broadsword could make a few strategic changes to steer players to a select few shards:

For NA based shards:
1. Designate Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific and Origin as "Live" shards. Remaining ones would be "Vintage" shards.
Vintage Shard:

• No transfers off, can still transfer to
• No EM events (except Siege)
• You may have 1 house on a Vintage Shard OR Siege

Live Shards:

• Increased live content: refocus some other shards EMs to do events on theses shards at various times throughout the week and day.
• Task at least 1 person as a floating live content moderator... random EM like content that just pops up without prior notification. City invasions, orc uprisings, etc.
• You may have 1 house on a Live shard

Ultimately the goal would be to make the live shards a little more interactive and exciting by focusing the available resources there. Those who wish to keep thier old places could do so.

Just my thoughts.

So people on all the other shards are just out of luck. CLOSING DOWN ACCOUNTS TYVM.

 

[Fridgster]

Broadsword could make a few strategic changes to steer players to a select few shards:

For NA based shards:
1. Designate Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific and Origin as "Live" shards. Remaining ones would be "Vintage" shards.
Vintage Shard:

• No transfers off, can still transfer to
• No EM events (except Siege)
• You may have 1 house on a Vintage Shard OR Siege

Live Shards:

• Increased live content: refocus some other shards EMs to do events on theses shards at various times throughout the week and day.
• Task at least 1 person as a floating live content moderator... random EM like content that just pops up without prior notification. City invasions, orc uprisings, etc.
• You may have 1 house on a Live shard

Ultimately the goal would be to make the live shards a little more interactive and exciting by focusing the available resources there. Those who wish to keep thier old places could do so.

Just my thoughts.

Yeah as long as it works for you right? I have a better idea. Let's shut down Atlantic and make them merge to other shards.

I stand by my previous post that merging the shards would have catastrophic effects. Those that are crying for a shard merger or shard limitations (see quoted above) are either oblivious to reality or have their own personal agenda that is clouding their reason.

 

[MalagAste]

Herp has a point, too many are over looking sound reasons for a long time.......
Work hours for a lot of us have changed.
Spouce's come into picture and are not to be ignored.
Children have been born.. they now need more attention... or have reached that time where parents need to be more attentive.
Old age... where a nap is needed.
Finacial requirements have changed and the game comes way down the scale in requirements.

Yes that's true for some ...... but while playing UO some of us have also had other things:

Now have Zero Parents...
Children have grown and gone.
Working different hours. (Which is where my trouble comes since now I work weekends so basically when everyone else is on and has free time..... I do not).
Getting older can't really do things as quickly as we once did, so PvP and things are just not as fun and neither is grinding.
Carpal Tunnel and Arthritis are setting in.
Hours at computer screens at work make hours at screens at home less fun.

 

[Merus]

So people on all the other shards are just out of luck. CLOSING DOWN ACCOUNTS TYVM.

So other than EM events, which are 90% cross sharders anyway, what would you loose on those other shards?

 

[Merus]

Yeah as long as it works for you right? I have a better idea. Let's shut down Atlantic and make them merge to other shards.

I stand by my previous post that merging the shards would have catastrophic effects. Those that are crying for a shard merger or shard limitations (see quoted above) are either oblivious to reality or have their own personal agenda that is clouding their reason.

Perhaps you are new, but I listed my home shard (Napa) as a Vintage shard...

Those shards would loose their EM events, but gain the ability to put up a house on one of the other shards. So the 2 hours a month of EM events on those shards are ALL that keeps people there?