If--would this help or hurt UO right now?

[Mordocuo]

If Mythic were to have only one server per region in the US like East Coast, Central, West Coast. By taking Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Pacific as the host shards. Increase land mass on all three to allow for more housing maing them 2-3 times larger then current size, and then closing the other shards like LS, Chees, etc. Give everyone free transfers for all of thier stuff and characters.

Would this help or Hurt UO?


The decreased servers could be a money saver for UO.
The Population increases on the shards can only be a plus that I see.
I imagine the same could be done for Asia and Europe servers.

I am sure that some would be upset at losing their home shards, but would something like this be better for the game?

 

[Connor_Graham]

This has been brought up time and time again. The answer has always been......if you want to be on a more populated shard, then move to one.

No good answer has been given for-

What about people with multiple grandfathered houses?
What about people that have multiple adjoining houses?
What about player run towns?
What about people that have Luna houses?
What about people that have castles, keeps, etc?

 

[Spree]

If you want to play on a shard with more people click the more populated shard and make a character there. I hate playing where there are 15 people trying to to kill the same monster. When i go hunting on Atlantic i want to kill 90% of the rude inconsiderate trash talking players, but you can't since it trammel so I go back to Siege. I rather play with less people than to deal with a bunch of 14 year old punks.

 

[Fink]

It would hurt, I think.

Basically you're uprooting the entire North American population (because, the only fair way to do it would be to wipe all housing and start over) to save on a couple of racks.. you'd lose loads of people, even if their stuff was put in some magical moving crate until they settled again.

Coming from a region (Australia) which is only serviced by one shard (Oceania), I don't know why anyone would want fewer choices as to where to play. Atlantic is full of people if that's your type of thing. Any other option just comes down to ping or community, depending on your playstyle.

I think the spread is fine the way it is, for now. A better solution would be more people rather than fewer servers. It is my honest and somewhat foolish hope that that's something we can expect in the future.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Hurt.

Bad idea that appears from time to time and every time it's brought up it sucks.

 

[Yalp]

Another same old tired thread on the same old tired idea...

Asked and answered and answered and answered and answered and answered.

And yes, the reasons are all over the 500 previous threads about this topic.

Even Draconi put a kibash on the idea... no shard consolidation.

Want more players? Either move to a more populated shard, or call on EA to put a box on the shelves.

 

[RoseBlue]

Again!!!

Look, they'll never do that (and Draconi stated it clearly) ; either they'll pull the plug (which is unlikely), either they'll keep all the shards.

And, plus, it is a very good thing.

 

[UOKaiser]

Never will happen. The vets are the ones keeping UO afloat. Those who wanted to move have moved with transfer tokens. Those who wouldn't move will leave UO if they lost there shard. In turn removing UO funding and the eventual shut down of all servers.

 

[Setnaffa]

Other reasons this will never....I repeat NEVER!!!!....work.

My main account has 7 characters each on Pacific, Napa Valley, Sonoma, and Origins. How the heck do I move them all to one shard?

I have 2 castles, 2 side-by-side 18x18's on Pacific, and another max lock-down house. Do I get to take all of them with me too? All my stuff?

One last thing....you assume ALL players want to be on a crowded shard.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

I think it goes beyond simply wanting a more crowded shard. I think we'd all like to see the shards a bit more active, however the "answer" given above is a NEGATIVE method of achieving this. It is negative in the sense that it is attempting to achieve the desired result by constricting the game and removing portions of it to give the illusion that UO is doing better than it really is. Kind of like pouring a half full container of liquid into another container half the size to claim it is "full". The problem is that you haven't changed the amount of liquid, simply lowered the sise of the container.

If we want UO to be more active, we the players, the Devs and EA Mythic need to be concentrating on how to bring old players back and newer players in and create a POSITIVE method of increasing UO activity by making the existant shards more full. This is why I have been putting such effort in trying to make KR a better client... as nostalgic and comfortable as current players are with 2d, the 2d client is NOT going to sell any new boxes at Best Buy or Wal Mart (ESPECIALLY not at "full retail" of $30+) to people who have never played the game but HAVE played games like WoW, LotRO, WAR, and EQ 1 and 2.

 

[debii]

If you want to play on a shard with more people click the more populated shard and make a character there. I hate playing where there are 15 people trying to to kill the same monster. When i go hunting on Atlantic i want to kill 90% of the rude inconsiderate trash talking players, but you can't since it trammel so I go back to Siege. I rather play with less people than to deal with a bunch of 14 year old punks.

ditto!
not to mention i dont want to lose my house or my stuff and more people on one server = more lag.

 

[Xalan Dementia]

Due to Uo's fragile state, any closing of shards would result in a decrease in total players. I, for one, would rather quit uo then deal with the Atlantic players, and I'm sure many others feel the same. What I think they should have done for the next expansion is not create New lands out of nothing, but to revamp existing facets like T2A ilsh and toko by adding things players can do other than sit at the champs here. If the players would cooperate the idea of downsizing the shard list would probably help the game.

 

[GarthGrey]

You made a posting that received a response 6 minutes later, and you didnt bother to answer. I suppose we could all assume that you made the posting and then left your house/apartment/jail cell/wherever...6 hrs later you haven't responded, on a Sunday, so you clearly don't care, you just want to Stir the Shard Merging Waters...don't bother please..

 

[Mordocuo]

You made a posting that received a response 6 minutes later, and you didnt bother to answer. I suppose we could all assume that you made the posting and then left your house/apartment/jail cell/wherever...6 hrs later you haven't responded, on a Sunday, so you clearly don't care, you just want to Stir the Shard Merging Waters...don't bother please..

Well thank you for pointing that out. I did not see a question In Connor's response directly to me. I read them more as an issue that would prevent what I was asking about in my post. And other responses I got sure did not seem to ask a question of me.

As far as my motives I see you can read minds by merely touching your keyboard. Could you please also tell me the winning lottery numbers for powerball?


As to my motive--it is plain and simple--I asked a question--was looking for opinions--looking for ways it might work and what problems might be created. Unlike you I do not spend all day on UHALL or in UO. So maybe it has been asked before--maybe I never saw it--maybe other questions here in UHALL have been asked before--are you the UHALL police that makes sure a question is never asked more than once?

Maybe part of the problem of UO population is attitudes like yours where players jump all over someone for asking a question. What did your response to my question do other than make a personal attack on someone?

 

[Connor_Graham]

I did not see a question In Connor's response directly to me.

Here are not just 1, but 5 questions from my reply that could have been responded to. How could you not see them?


What about people with multiple grandfathered houses?
What about people that have multiple adjoining houses?
What about player run towns?
What about people that have Luna houses?
What about people that have castles, keeps, etc?

 

[Mordocuo]

I did not see a question In Connor's response directly to me.QUOTE]

Here are not just 1, but 5 questions from my reply that could have been responded to. How could you not see them?


What about people with multiple grandfathered houses?
What about people that have multiple adjoining houses?
What about player run towns?
What about people that have Luna houses?
What about people that have castles, keeps, etc?

My first impression was that you were pointing out the negative considerations to my question. But since you ask directly. Question 1--they lose them, question 2--they lose them, question 3--they lose them, question 4--they lose them, question 5--they lose them. But then I would think a player like you already knew the answers before I replied.

But I have also read responses from you that its about the game and not about the greed. each of your questions relate directly to greed. Don't get me wrong I have a greedy side as well. But as I asked in my post, if new land masses were added to the surviving servers, the player run towns could be rebuilt, catsles and keeps could be rebuilt, multiple adjoining houses could be rebuilt. The concept of multiple houses on an account could be revisited and reimplemented. The Luna houses would definately be lost.

I hope I answered your questions.

 

[Jhym]

This is a facetious discussion. There is absolutely 100% no reason for EA to EVER do this. It would cost them hugely in customer PR. They would be ripped so many new holes that they would look like swiss cheese. And it would likely lead to UO being shutdown, as many of us oldtimers would leave.

There are too many old, dedicated groups on each of the servers for them to just "merge" them. Plus you then get into the 'MY spot' issues and historical issues -- if a Seer on Chessie placed a special historical important castle but a Seer on Atlantic had placed something else, who "wins"? Answer is nobody does.

But in any case the question ignores the fact that server technology has ramped up dramatically the past ten years.

All they have to do is take each server group, push it into a virtual server cluster and *poof*, they've saved 50% or more on upkeep and datacenter costs.

I presume they have already done it, but if they haven't they probably will in the next few years.

Perhaps someone should just put a sticky thread up on the board "Things that will not/cannot happen in UO, so don't put up a blasted thread about it."

Concentrate on making game play better -- if you are arguing that the shard is "empty", well, have you invited your friends to play? Have you attempted AT ALL to join in with other guilds and player cities/groups? Are you playing at odd hours or during prime playing times?

This is a game that you make what you want of it, NOT wait for people to entertain you.

 

[Mordocuo]

I was being nostalgic in making this thread. I remember the days when the shards were much more populated. I understand there would be issues in doing a server merge, I even understand why people would not want it. But in remembering some of the early days of UO I thought that some of its glory was due to the numbers of players that actually played and asked simply if it could be good for UO to do this.

I completely understand when people say no way. But by asking maybe an idea that no one ever thought of before might be discovered.

 

[wanderer1origin]

me thiunks any that post combine shards post have there startics account locked for another 6 months lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how do account for those that have a characters hard trained on many shards

and can transfer why dont u start the migration?

then will be on populated shard so no issues

My first impression was that you were pointing out the negative considerations to my question. But since you ask directly. Question 1--they lose them, question 2--they lose them, question 3--they lose them, question 4--they lose them, question 5--they lose them. But then I would think a player like you already knew the answers before I replied.

But I have also read responses from you that its about the game and not about the greed. each of your questions relate directly to greed. Don't get me wrong I have a greedy side as well. But as I asked in my post, if new land masses were added to the surviving servers, the player run towns could be rebuilt, catsles and keeps could be rebuilt, multiple adjoining houses could be rebuilt. The concept of multiple houses on an account could be revisited and reimplemented. The Luna houses would definately be lost.

I hope I answered your questions.

 

[Yalp]

These are some of the negatives...

Loss of toons.. (only 7 allowed on new shard?... what happens if you have 7 toons on every shard that is merged?)
LAG LAG LAG.. how does it get fixed?
Recall/crash bug... how does it get fixed?
Cheating/Hacking/Duping/Scripting.. it's now been magnified as more players doing these activities on fewer shards.. how does it get fixed?
Loss of community.. guilds, shard events, history .. how do you reclaim that?
Housing... how does it get done fairly? If you already have housing on a shard that is NOT being merged... do you get to keep it? Or is it all wiped? and everyone starts for the beginnning?
Bank boxes, storage, items.. everyone starts as a newbie?
Factions.. kill points, ranks,etc. ie. does Baja's small shard get to compete with Atlantic's big one?



Is there a better way to get more people on the shard? How about increasing the customer base? That entails selling your product.. and EA is woefully short on any kind of salesmanship of UO.

 

[Mordocuo]

These are some of the negatives...

Loss of toons.. (only 7 allowed on new shard?... what happens if you have 7 toons on every shard that is merged?)
LAG LAG LAG.. how does it get fixed?
Recall/crash bug... how does it get fixed?
Cheating/Hacking/Duping/Scripting.. it's now been magnified as more players doing these activities on fewer shards.. how does it get fixed?
Loss of community.. guilds, shard events, history .. how do you reclaim that?
Housing... how does it get done fairly? If you already have housing on a shard that is NOT being merged... do you get to keep it? Or is it all wiped? and everyone starts for the beginnning?
Bank boxes, storage, items.. everyone starts as a newbie?
Factions.. kill points, ranks,etc. ie. does Baja's small shard get to compete with Atlantic's big one?

Is there a better way to get more people on the shard? How about increasing the customer base? That entails selling your product.. and EA is woefully short on any kind of salesmanship of UO.

Points well taken. I wish I had a method of making it work that would be effective and fair to all.

Thank you for a respectfull response.

 

[MalagAste]

While my "home" is Great Lakes.... I'll say this... sure in the short it would be nice to have more people.... but if they were to propose moving me I know I for one have a castle and 5 homes all in about the same area on the same server.... and I would be VERY ticked off if I had to uproot and have all my holdings spread all over kingdom come.... Many people have attachments to where they are. I know I do.

I live in an RP town. Uprooting it would seriously tork me off.... trying to rebuild on another shard with the proximity of things and all would stink... especially if I had such on Legends or Lake Superior and I had to try to move that to GLs or Atlantic... it woudl NOT be possible...

No I think that would VERY much hurt things..... now. If and this is a big if... If they restructured the shards in such a way that EVERYONE had to move.... and that they specialized shards into things like "PvP".... Siege types, Pre-AOS" or even shards designed for RP.... PvM and had specialized events and EM's designated just for THAT type of gameplay...... perhaps.... though I wouldn't much care to be uprooted and then have to in my opinion... narrow my gameplay... some of us enjoy UO for it's increadible diversity.... the likes of which no other game even comes close to matching.... that's what makes UO what it is...

I am not sure that uprooting folk would be of any benifit.. considering if these folk really wanted to live elsewhere... they would most likely have transfered by now.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Probably hurt.

People complain about under-population now, but they complained about over-population, and the accompanying lag, before.

I somehow doubt that server space is much of an expense problem, and remember that UO is already "wildly profitable" as is.

And remember that house ownership, customization, and decoration is, despite its occasional and sad ridicule by players of another playstyle, an important part of UO, a feature that's been used on occasion as one of its selling points.

In other words to suddenly merge shards like that and make people lose houses has WAY more effect than "just" causing people to lose virtual goods; it hurts a playstyle that, while it may not be as loud as others, is considerably more popular than people often give it open credit for.

-Galen's player

 

[Old Man of UO]

I was looking for a link, couldn't find it. A developer from EA/Mythic chimed in another thread of this same topic with something like "All shards are way too populated to even consider combining them."

Maybe someone else can find the link.

 

[HD2300]

Wont be done because EA makes good money from selling transfer tokens. When players decide to move out of a dead shard, that is a couple of transfer token sales per account.

 

[Beer_Cayse]

Read all the responses in Connors subthread ... there's the main thrust of your response. All the rest seem to back it up.

My opinion ... same as the rest:
1. hurt
2. you want a more populated shard, make a character there
3. leave things alone

 

[Connor_Graham]

My first impression was that you were pointing out the negative considerations to my question. But since you ask directly. Question 1--they lose them, question 2--they lose them, question 3--they lose them, question 4--they lose them, question 5--they lose them. But then I would think a player like you already knew the answers before I replied.

I hope I answered your questions.

You answered your own question as well.

"They lose them" = People quitting UO.

 

[Gellor]

Noway as others have said.

You have the whole housing isssue:

• Pissed players forced to move
• Pissed players on single shard (who may get forced out of house)
• Pissed players losing blessed locations

Then you have the issue with why players are on a shard. Not everyone picked a shard at random just because. Some picked shards due to population. Some moved shards to get away from a group.

Then you have the whole issue with people who have/play multiple characters on multiple shards. On one account, I've got probably 15 developed and equipped chars on west coast servers alone. Now you are gonna say "pick five or seven"

There really is no benefit from EA's standpoint to closing shards:

• Server hardware is already payed off
• Bandwith is probably bulk bought so 5Tb is probably same price as 1Tb (or whatever the usage is)
• Electricity savings is minimal

The only "upside" of the whole condense the shards is all of a sudden you have super populations on one shard. But that causes:

• Spawn over saturation... everyone camping <fill in popular monster>
• Super lag
• Concentration of asses at events

 

[kinney42]

forcing me to move to another shard = the cancelation of my account.

 

[Stanton Of Pac]

If Mythic were to have only one server per region in the US like East Coast, Central, West Coast. By taking Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Pacific as the host shards. Increase land mass on all three to allow for more housing maing them 2-3 times larger then current size, and then closing the other shards like LS, Chees, etc. Give everyone free transfers for all of thier stuff and characters.

Would this help or Hurt UO?


The decreased servers could be a money saver for UO.
The Population increases on the shards can only be a plus that I see.
I imagine the same could be done for Asia and Europe servers.

I am sure that some would be upset at losing their home shards, but would something like this be better for the game?

Originally UO was balanced for about 300 players per server - they really didn't have a clue how many people would want to join in '94-'96, when they were designing the game. There was even some thought that all those empty houses in towns might be sold to players and the NPC shops run by player-vendors. After launch the populations ballooned to an average of 3000 active accounts per shard and crowding was horrible - some places you couldn't walk for the lag.

Today the population is just about where it should be on most shards. They should prune some inactive houses and accounts and sponsor more player events but that's about it. It's NICE walking through a forest not dotted with hundreds of tacky little 1-room cabins.

 

[Cetric]

Maybe they allow a one time shard transfer, not close down a server, but allow someone, if they wish to move, to free move to a different shard for..maybe 2 weeks? I know a few people who want to come to a better shard but dont want to buy the shard transfer token.