Time for a Tram only shard

[Traveller]

You bring up a good point. In that case, I'd say transferring TO the shard should be allowed, but transferring off wouldn't.

*shrugs* I don't care about that, I am not one of those who will play on it, so as long as transfer is only ON it, it's not anything of my concern. Still, how much time do you think it will pass before the whining crowd will start to complain about "Why can't I transfer to my home shard?".

Honestly, the only reason why I can see people wanting this trammel shard is because they want to get PS and then go back to their home shard... I can understand more people wanting a "classic" shard (pre-AoS and/or pre-ren were effectively different games), while I can't see how EA can gain even a single player from an all-trammel shards. Seriously, how many people do you think have quit because they couldn't do champ spawns?

 

[Felinious-CWS]

Ok then the rules for this shard should be

--No tansferring to or from(start fresh)
--1 character
--and since it will be a shard that only has Trammel features, there would be no 120 powerscrolls(except crafting ones), since that is a Fel only feature.
--ROT skill timers


Enjoy

I was simply pointing out if this Trammel only server, was going to be unique, then it should have unique rules the same as SP does.

Start Fresh...its a new shard, if you cant transfer off or on, no one is going to script there. What is gotten on the shard stays there period. Plus a new server should have all new people on with equal chance at getting housing spots and other server firsts items.


120 Powersrolls--as far as I know there are no 120 powerscrolls that originate in trammel(except crafting ones) so how on earth would they just pop up in a Trammel only server. Since there is no pvp on there server, except guilds which can set their own rules, everyone would be matched with 100 point skill caps. Just like it is in Trammel, if none of the powerscrolls came from Fel which does not exsist on the Trammel only server.

I like the 1 char thing, but I guess you can have all the chars you want. Will make it more fun i guess, I concede that point.

 

[Connor_Graham]

if you cant transfer off or on, no one is going to script there.

Wanna bet?

 

[Felinious-CWS]

Wanna bet?

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

 

[Viper09]

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

Hahaha, no it doesn't!

All someone needs to script is a program. The thing about siege is that there is no tram rule-set location that is safe for scripters so no matter where the scripter is, they can be attack and/or stolen from. Now that doesn't mean there are no scripters on Siege, there still are plenty, they just get killed or stolen from

On this Trammel shard, they can script anywhere and be safe from pk and thieves! And the fact that they will be starting new means even more will want to script to train their characters up without having to be at the computer. This means there will be even MORE scripters on this new shard. All you need to script is a program and I don't see how not being able to transfer on or off will prevent that, so please, give us a real explanation.

 

[Cogniac]

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

High-larious.

I take it you don't see Rico's almost daily posts talking about how players on Siege Perilous murder and steal from scripters? Such processes would require the actual existence of scripters on that shard to work out properly, which rather precludes your "there are no scripters on Siege Perilous" hypothesis.

 

[Connor_Graham]

Wanna bet?

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

There are scripters on Siege too.

 

[HD2300]

Otherwise people will just farm PS on this (useless, I think. There REALLY are people who decide whether to play UO or not on the fact that they must pay for the PS instead of chaining champ spawns?) trammel shard and transfer them to the regular shards, making their presence in fel for regular shards useless. If you want to play trammel, all is well and good, just don't let it leak into regular shards, it already leaks too much with the current setup.

Simple. Just make it so PS cant be xsharded from this shard. Either no transfers out like Siege or flag PS dropped on this shard as un-xshardable.

 

[Felinious-CWS]

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

Of course there are sripters on siege, hell 8 years ago when i was training hide, I would weight down the hide key and wake up with alot more skill then I went to bed with. I'm sure you can find them here and there, but the reason we fight hard for no transfers on or off the shard has everything to do with scripting along with other factors.

We don't have to deal with vendors that sell 40 arties of everykind, with tons of duped gold in the house, or people running scripts to mine more ore then than any 1 person could ever use. When you see these gold selling websights, it rare to find one that sells gold on siege, its just way to much work to do it. Players on Siege sell to one another, it makes a great community.

You act like im trying to hurt your shard plans. I trying to offer a way for you guys that want this server a way to have a much better server, and not having to deal with the junk that I see people complain so much about here on Uhall. SP has our own problems, but one major problem we don't have is all the duping/scripting issues that seem to anger so many on Trammel/Fel shards.

 

[Ayden22]

PvPers have Seige. It is time for PvMers to have a Tram only shard.

This will bring back many former players, most of whom were PvMers, to the game. It will revive UO because the majority of the market wants PvE. Think how popular WOW is, but imagine it with better systems. It is what the masses want. This could be a huge selling point when SA is released to attract back former players.

You will still can have wars between guilds, but only if both guilds want it. Factions will work as is.

I think this would be awesome. You would have 2 or 3 super shards which would be filled with players.

EA would make truckloads of $$$. Either mass sales of transfer tokens, or if it is like Siege with one character per account, people would open up more accounts.

Credit for this idea goes to Speedy Orkit.

to use WOW to show how popular this could be is very flawed for pvp on normal shards (UO) and normal servers (WOW) you have to go to a different land mass to pvp .

if this idea goes off it would have to be a none transfer shard fel resource gathering will have to aply to tram power scrolls will have to move to tram in other words take all the risk out of it .

and for normal servers you would have to bring back the bounty system and let us chop heads off again but the bounty system will be for gold and different arties that r put up as rewards

 

[Lord Kotan]

you do bring up alot of good points...

You say a trammy shard only..Ok lets make this a little more fun then...You can not transfer to or from this shard...Also make it Seige ROT set..

Im for it..

Yes... Tram only shard, and no Xfer to or from ... I'll make a character there.

 

[Redxpanda]

Why do people care so much about the transfers to the shard and RoT? I can completely understand stopping transfers from the shard.

 

[Traveller]

Either no transfers out like Siege

Which is exactly what I was saying, maybe?

 

[Mirage]

PvPers have Seige. It is time for PvMers to have a Tram only shard.

This will bring back many former players, most of whom were PvMers, to the game. It will revive UO because the majority of the market wants PvE. Think how popular WOW is, but imagine it with better systems. It is what the masses want. This could be a huge selling point when SA is released to attract back former players.

You will still can have wars between guilds, but only if both guilds want it. Factions will work as is.

I think this would be awesome. You would have 2 or 3 super shards which would be filled with players.

EA would make truckloads of $$$. Either mass sales of transfer tokens, or if it is like Siege with one character per account, people would open up more accounts.

Credit for this idea goes to Speedy Orkit.

I think if they do that they should allow you to move your acct there freely, not have us spend 120.00 to move there..

 

[Kaleb]

Same as when we ask for a felucia only production shard or pre AOS. (siege/mung dont count its a whole seperate monster with its own rules) and that awnser is NO!!! EA should not waste their resources on something that only a handfull will play. PvMers wont play a server that dosnt have PvPers to sell their leet items too for mega millions.

I have been getting into PRS and to tell you the truth the most active ones are Felucia only mostly UO:R and back and pvmers make up at least 70% of those servers. the tram only ones have only a fraction the players as its counter part. EA servers are not a good model to go by being that they dont offer felucia/tram only production shards.

 

[Viper09]

Why do people care so much about the transfers to the shard and RoT? I can completely understand stopping transfers from the shard.

Siege for example, has a harder skill gain system there. If you allowed transferring from production shards that means you can simply train your character on an easy system in around a week or so and hop on over to Siege. Or transfer many GMed characters over where everyone has muscled months to train a character. Where some people do not want to x-fer from another shard to Siege and just try and train their character as fast as possible, which is a lot longer than a week with ROT.

Plus, why flood a new shard with tons of well trained characters and junk from other shards?

 

[Dryke GL]

Play a game where you cannot lose!!! All your equipment is guaranteed to be with you until the bitter end, unless you won't farm ettins for 15 mins per day.

You Trammies make no sense to me.

You realize this is true in the largest MMORPG in existence, right? Even on the 'PvP' servers where you can be attacked pretty much anywhere?

The ability to steal items from other players (or, in the case of insurance, take a bunch of their money) is not necessary to create a robust PvP system. It is quite possible to have PvP that carries significant rewards to those who succeed at killing their 'fellow' players without undue hardship to those who are killed (aside from the minor annoyance of dying).

Clearly, this type of setup makes sense to millions of other people; trying to pretend that it's somehow 'marginal' thinking doesn't do you much credit.

Having said that...I'm not so sure this idea of a 'trammel' server carries a whole lot of merit. I really don't see it generating much (if any) new revenue; I'd imagine most of the players on such a server would be transfers (or 'rerolls', if transfers are not allowed). Thus, it would likely be more of a cost than anything else - money for a new server set and its support, money spent massaging every future update for the new ruleset, etc.

I'd think it would be far easier to turn PvP into an all-reward/no-penalty system (aside from the obvious death, that is) than it would be to create a new ruleset.

 

[Traveller]

The ability to steal items from other players (or, in the case of insurance, take a bunch of their money) is not necessary to create a robust PvP system.

That is pretty much true.

What is NOT true, however, is that the ability to not lose anything is not necessary to create a robust virtual world. On any world in which you never lose anything you need continous dev intervention to add new, more powerful items so your customers do not get bored. And when you have added them you need dev intervention to rebalance the imbalances of said items. Then you add new levels/items, and the cycle restarts. And I didn't even mention the effect it has on crafting and trading.

 

[Dryke GL]

That is pretty much true.

What is NOT true, however, is that the ability to not lose anything is not necessary to create a robust virtual world. On any world in which you never lose anything you need continous dev intervention to add new, more powerful items so your customers do not get bored. And when you have added them you need dev intervention to rebalance the imbalances of said items. Then you add new levels/items, and the cycle restarts. And I didn't even mention the effect it has on crafting and trading.

I do not believe that my post implied that I supported a 'no loss ever' setup; in fact, I think you are right inasmuch as a system that does not allow for any loss of any kind promotes stagnation that can only be countered by increasingly more powerful rewards. However, that loss does not have to come as a direct result of being killed by another player because the player doing the killing can be rewarded in some other tangible fashion.

In addition to indirect rewards for successful PvPers, you could have direct (though less severe) penalties for those who 'fail'. The death itself is one penalty, though perhaps the inconvenience factor might be increased slightly by instituting a 'death timer' during which you cannot be ressed. You could also increase durability loss upon death from a fellow player (though I must admit that the proliferation of PoF and 'self repair' items has crippled the 'removal' of items from the game - certainly a topic worth its own thread). If there were some sort of running tally or score for those who manage to kill a fellow player, being killed in return could be some sort of negative influence on that score - which, if that score was used to determine those 'indirect rewards' I mentioned, would certainly be a reason to avoid death.

Any penalty that is so strong that it prevents such a large percentage of the player base from even attempting significant portions of the game content is, in my opinion, far too 'effective' as a deterrent. The sad truth of it all, however, is that it is likely to cost too much to justify such a significant revamping; as with the idea of the 'Trammel Only' server, such a change would probably result in driving away more of the current playerbase than it would attract in new players - even considering the lower overall percentage of current 'hardcore Fel' players.

 

[Redxpanda]

Plus, why flood a new shard with tons of well trained characters and junk from other shards?

Thats true, it should be a fresh start shard. It would be interesting to watch the economy of a fresh shard also. Although i would like it to be normal rules, i think only allowing 1 character per account would encourage community.

 

[Uvtha]

Sure, there is a shard called SP, that proves it.

No one scripts on siege because, say it with me now, you can kill them.

No recall + no tram = Little to no scripting.

Yes recall + yes tram = even MORE scripting.

 

[Arch Magus]

Christ people!

Who cares if there was a Tram only Shard.

God knows an old-school shard AND a Tram shard together would do wonders for this game's playerbase. .... making it go UP!

Want to do spawns without interference? Let them!
Want to play the way it was back Pre-Ren? LET THEM!

Stop it...no more crying people!...just STOP IT.

 

[Traveller]

I do not believe that my post implied that I supported a 'no loss ever' setup;

I suppose I misunderstood your message. However:

in fact, I think you are right inasmuch as a system that does not allow for any loss of any kind promotes stagnation that can only be countered by increasingly more powerful rewards.

Technically speaking it's not stagnation, but item inflation. The more "rewards" are around, the lesser their value, until they are not even perceived as "reward" anymore. If you have items that get pumped into the system and they never get removed out of the system their value will go lower and lower. Just look at what happens to +5 and +10 scrolls which are left abandoned at the site of champ spawns.

However, that loss does not have to come as a direct result of being killed by another player because the player doing the killing can be rewarded in some other tangible fashion.

Not sure about that. You see, if the winner is rewarded by some sort of item, while that same item is not removed from the loser with the same frequency, it means that one item more has been created. And after that another one, etc... Perfect receipt for item inflation. If you doubt it just check at what happened with faction killpoints: they added a way to create points out of thin air, and now we have people running around with millions killpoints...

Any penalty that is so strong that it prevents such a large percentage of the player base from even attempting significant portions of the game content is, in my opinion, far too 'effective' as a deterrent.

It DID not use to be so effective, you know.

as with the idea of the 'Trammel Only' server, such a change would probably result in driving away more of the current playerbase than it would attract in new players

I doubt that. I just think it would make no difference whatsoever. I can't imagine that people canceled their accounts just because they cannot afford the status symbol +20 scrolls.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I'm for this.

I've always said that people should never have been able to move back and forth to Trammel and Felucca. They should have been split from the start.

Get rid of all the old shards and make them either Tram or Fel ruleset.

 

[Arch Magus]

I'm for this.

I've always said that people should never have been able to move back and forth to Trammel and Felucca. They should have been split from the start.

Get rid of all the old shards and make them either Tram or Fel ruleset.

Word.

They should have just left the shards the way they were, and then added Trammel only shards.

 

[Dryke GL]

Not sure about that. You see, if the winner is rewarded by some sort of item, while that same item is not removed from the loser with the same frequency, it means that one item more has been created. And after that another one, etc... Perfect receipt for item inflation. If you doubt it just check at what happened with faction killpoints: they added a way to create points out of thin air, and now we have people running around with millions killpoints...

That's a very good point. Wish I had a great idea to address it. The only things that come to mind are consumable rewards, or rewards that have fixed durability levels (perhaps items that cannot use PoF, or even items that cannot be repaired...that last might be too severe, who knows...)

I doubt that. I just think it would make no difference whatsoever. I can't imagine that people canceled their accounts just because they cannot afford the status symbol +20 scrolls.

I guess my worry here is this:

1. You would see a migration of people to these new 'Tram Only' servers.

2. You might see a slight increase in new subscriptions, although I seriously doubt it would be significant; it just isn't a large enough (or fundamental enough) change in the game to draw people in.

3. Those who 'remained behind' on the old style servers would not benefit from any influx of players attracted to the 'new' ruleset; thus, they would experience a general decrease in the playing population. The more 'dead' a shard feels, the less attractive it will be; eventually you will see people getting bored and quitting the game.

I'm thinking that the number of people who eventually quit the game due to #3 would be greater than the number of new people you get due to #2. Add in the fact that it costs money in the first place to set up a new server, to maintain it, and to make the specialized changes to every patch necessary for a unique ruleset...I just don't see this being a healthy, positive change for UO.

 

[Pinco]

here is my idea:

make a PvM token: if you use it you can do pvp only in faction or guild rules, but not outside of that rules and noone can attack you outside of this ruleset. Felucca, Trammel, Tokuno, ecc... make no difference, if you use this toke you cant pvp anymore outside guilds or faction.

Do you like savage pvp? dont use this token
Do youlike pvm? use this token and noone will distrupt your game anymore
Do you like rpg? use this toke and you can fight your rpg wars in your guild in every maps and noone will distrupt your game anymore.

They can make a pve token for back to standard if you dont like it anymore. With this you can pay and play peacefully.

 

[Sirus_Europa]

There shouldn't be any new shards. It would only reduce the population of the existing ones.