Classic shard.

[Megilhir]

For reference to:

And this leads to the discussion on loot. Though these thoughts are not part and parcel to the Classic Shard they darn well should have been. Ever wonder where that half naked succubus was hiding that halberd? And why wasn’t she using it on your attacking character? Seriously, adjust the loot tables to reflect what the mob could be reasonably expected to carry. Sewer rats should not drop gold for example. They can surely be cut up into meat, which can be cooked and sold or eaten. Orc leaders/lords should not all have the same piece of ringmail. Do orcs have an equipment central issue facility? Perhaps at the Yew or Cove camp, but not out in the wilds.

This statement;

agree 100% with this...but as you pointed out, this was not part of the Classic Ruleset...so while you firmly argued against certain things for this reason, you are now advocating for this in spite of it.

Simply put, most of the changes called for in this series of posts are revisions or amendments back to the original rule set that people seem to be advocating.

This singlular observation of mine is not a fix to a fix as it were. It is a fix to what never should have been in my assessment.

This then is a completely different basis of debate and not revisionist as much as creationist in its scope.

It is therefore not a hypocrisy, it is instead visionary. Though we can debate the lucidity of said vision of course.

 

[woolygimp]

Pet bonding is the ability to rezz dead pets?

If so, absolutely not. Back in the classic days, there was a market for dragons/drakes/nightmares as many tamers created their "living" from taming pets for others for a price. While tamers were overpowered, they carried significantly more risk than other specs due to the value of their pets.

If they brought their dragon to a fight, they risked losing it. Losing a pet was a harsh penalty in itself and it kept tamers in check, as a dragon was easily one of the most powerful entities on any given pvp battlefield.

Taking out the risk part of the equation would mean the server would be over-run with tamers. Mages don't get to "re-summon" their regs, and GM swords don't get to "re-summon" their weapons/armor when they die, why should a tamer get that luxury - especially when their pets are more powerful than any sword.

I remember back when I first started playing, I was ganked on Ice Island and I cane across a tamer with his dragon who offered to help me hunt down the PKs. Well, we stumbled into an ambush and his dragon was killed and I felt horrible about it because it represented a significant portion of his worth... but that is what classic UO was about - risk vs reward.

Being able to spirit heal a pet would be a definite deal breaker for me and there's absolutely NOTHING classic about it.

If they allow pet bonding, they might as well allow everyone access to blessed vanquishing katanas. After all, the third-party animal market was just as important as any other market, and it's completely unfair that one particular spec has absolutely no risk when it comes to their "tools".

--------

Mounts are fine, but absolutely no ethereals. Riding a mount in combat should carry risk just as anything else. 900g per horse was quite a lot in the classic environment, and it was an advantage you had to pay for.

Ethereal mounts were one of the dumbest features ever included into the game. It created a playing field where every veteran player had access to an invulnerable mount they could use 24/7 without restriction, giving them a drastic advantage over any newcomer. Pretty soon everyone had "perma-mounts" and everyone was on an equal - but mounted - playing field, which takes away the economic distinction and choice of whether or not to risk mounts.

You should either have to tame them, pay a tamer to tame them, or buy them from the vendor.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

On the subject of pets:

I think its only fair to go with one era's ruleset or the other regarding pets.

Tamers should either have unlimited slots, like they used to have...or there should be bonding.

When the change over was made, I was sort of po'ed about it because I liked having 2 or 3 WWs or Dragons under my control. It was a very powerful ability...and probably needed some nerfing. The new control slots thing really limited what a tamer could do...

...but then I had a change of heart when I started realizing that with bonding, my pets could recall with me...no more having to trick them into going into gates because they're stupid, and because I could rez them. Trained pets are very different than untrained ones, so a good trained pet is indeed an asset to a tamer.

I am sort of on the fence on it, but whichever way it went, it wouldn't prevent me from playing on the shard.

 

[Derium of ls]

Pet bonding is the ability to rezz dead pets?

If so, absolutely not. Back in the classic days, there was a market for dragons/drakes/nightmares as many tamers created their "living" from taming pets for others for a price. While tamers were overpowered, they carried significantly more risk than other specs due to the value of their pets.

If they brought their dragon to a fight, they risked losing it. Losing a pet was a harsh penalty in itself and it kept tamers in check, as a dragon was easily one of the most powerful entities on any given pvp battlefield.

Taking out the risk part of the equation would mean the server would be over-run with tamers. Mages don't get to "re-summon" their regs, and GM swords don't get to "re-summon" their weapons/armor when they die, why should a tamer get that luxury - especially when their pets are more powerful than any sword.

I remember back when I first started playing, I was ganked on Ice Island and I cane across a tamer with his dragon who offered to help me hunt down the PKs. Well, we stumbled into an ambush and his dragon was killed and I felt horrible about it because it represented a significant portion of his worth... but that is what classic UO was about - risk vs reward.

Being able to spirit heal a pet would be a definite deal breaker for me and there's absolutely NOTHING classic about it.

If they allow pet bonding, they might as well allow everyone access to blessed vanquishing katanas. After all, the third-party animal market was just as important as any other market, and it's completely unfair that one particular spec has absolutely no risk when it comes to their "tools".

--------

Mounts are fine, but absolutely no ethereals. Riding a mount in combat should carry risk just as anything else. 900g per horse was quite a lot in the classic environment, and it was an advantage you had to pay for.

Ethereal mounts were one of the dumbest features ever included into the game. It created a playing field where every veteran player had access to an invulnerable mount they could use 24/7 without restriction, giving them a drastic advantage over any newcomer. Pretty soon everyone had "perma-mounts" and everyone was on an equal - but mounted - playing field, which takes away the economic distinction and choice of whether or not to risk mounts.

You should either have to tame them, pay a tamer to tame them, or buy them from the vendor.

I agree 100%, the one thing I DO want is the pet cap like we have now. I remember someone on LS who use to bring over 20 drakes with him at a time for PvP... needless to say he owned the brit graveyard.

 

[woolygimp]

On the subject of pets:

I think its only fair to go with one era's ruleset or the other regarding pets.

Tamers should either have unlimited slots, like they used to have...or there should be bonding.

When the change over was made, I was sort of po'ed about it because I liked having 2 or 3 WWs or Dragons under my control. It was a very powerful ability...and probably needed some nerfing. The new control slots thing really limited what a tamer could do...

...but then I had a change of heart when I started realizing that with bonding, my pets could recall with me...no more having to trick them into going into gates because they're stupid, and because I could rez them. Trained pets are very different than untrained ones, so a good trained pet is indeed an asset to a tamer.

I am sort of on the fence on it, but whichever way it went, it wouldn't prevent me from playing on the shard.

Limited pet control was introduced prior to UO:R and trammel, and long prior to pet bonding.

That's the rulset they should use. Using 3 WWs/Dragons at once was definitely overpowered and it was nerfed long before AoS.

No pet bonding. Two dragons/WWs max under control at any given time, maybe even one. I don't think you fathom how overpowered tamers were in classic, and how even more so they would be given the implementation of pet bonding.
It makes sense to have to gate a pet, because players received a warning, in the form of an open gate, before a tamer gated on top of you with his pets. When you saw a gate open, you had time to act. Dragons/WWs w/ their tamer didn't instantly appear on top of you.

I haven't played since then, but the ability for a tamer to "recall" with his pets sounds absurd. Both in that players couldn't keep the pet locked down to kill it, because the tamer would only have to escape himself to spare the pet, and in that it would give no warning to an incoming tamer.

As I said, I played a tamer... and I can't count how many times my pets were "lured" away and then slaughtered... unless I was able to get a moongate open in the vicinity and get my pet through it, or win the battle. It seemed only fair due to the power my character possessed in relation to any other class and it's a power you have to pay for - as any other class, and not unlike using a battleship in a game such as Eve. More power = more risk.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

It is therefore not a hypocrisy, it is instead visionary. Though we can debate the lucidity of said vision of course.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that you were being hypocritical...just that there was some inconsistency in your approach.

But on the subject of your loot idea:


I have no issue with it whatsoever. I think that certain creatures in the game...like a lich for example...should carry regs, a staff (since that is what the graphic is holding), and maybe a small amount of gold. Meanwhile, a creature that would have no use for gold...like a gazer...probably shouldn't carry it. Perhaps a gazer might have a gem? Not sure why...unless he just thought it was pretty. Whereas an orc captain should be carrying whatever you see on the graphic. If he is wearing a full suit of ringmail...then he should have that. If he has a mace, a mace should be on the corpse...etc.

Makes perfect sense to me.

If it were up to me to design the shard, this would be a part of it...and loot would be harder to come by as well. And things you might buy at an NPC would be a lot more expensive. This was one aspect of Siege that I really did like...although it only serves to dissaude new players from starting there now, I can see why it was setup the way it was.

In a perfect world, a UO player might have to work very hard to manage to afford a full suit of plate armor...and something like a tower or a keep...well, that should take years. And as much as I exploited it, NPC town vendors should not buy things that players make. I had over made over 400,000 gold by the second month of the game just making female plate armor out of hides I would buy at the tanner shop with my tailor and selling them back to NPCs (yes...plate armor for us gals was made out of hides for a long time...I have no idea why). It was fun to recall around to all the different hide shops waiting for the "hide spawn" Of course, it was silly that an NPC would have 5000+ hides for sale at one time. Despite what a lot of people thought, those did not come from players selling them to the tanner...they were generated in game, by the game, like reg vendor NPCs. So everytime you went and bought all the hides...when they respawned, there was double! We had it worked out on a chart and everything as to when each town's vendors would spawn hides.

Ah...memories...

...anyway, I think that if I were making my own shard, I would put some limits on things like that. I know, I know "that's not classic" but I think even a Classic Shard can benefit from some of the lessons learned throughout the last one and one third decades...otherwise, it will probably be short lived.

 

[Derium of ls]

I have no issue with it whatsoever. I think that certain creatures in the game...like a lich for example...should carry regs, a staff (since that is what the graphic is holding), and maybe a small amount of gold. Meanwhile, a creature that would have no use for gold...like a gazer...probably shouldn't carry it. Perhaps a gazer might have a gem? Not sure why...unless he just thought it was pretty. Whereas an orc captain should be carrying whatever you see on the graphic. If he is wearing a full suit of ringmail...then he should have that. If he has a mace, a mace should be on the corpse...etc.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I hate the game Mortal Online, but it was created by old UO players, and one of the things they nailed was exactly that. you won't find an item off a monster that is "out of place" for it to be carrying. that idea I loved

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Limited pet control was introduced prior to UO:R and trammel, and long prior to pet bonding.

Control slots and bonding were introduced in the same publish.

Maybe this is what you are refering to:

Updates from May 25, 1999 publish.

■Pet "orneriness" is now a much larger factor. The tougher an animal was to originally tame, the tougher it will be to control in general. The higher your taming skill and animal lore skills, the better able to control the animal you will be. Animal taming is more significant for this than animal lore is.

That didn't address the number of pets you could control though...

...this publish on 23 Jul 2002 - (yep, THAT publish - Pub 16)...is the one that established both pet control limits, and pet bonding...

http://www.uoherald.com/news/news.php?newsid=703

Publish 16 - Changes to the Taming ProfessionUO Team23 Jul 2002 00:00:00 EST

...

Pet Limit


•You will only be able to control a number of pets based on your pet control slots. Every player has 5 pet control slots. Most pets only require 1 slot, with the following exceptions:
◦2 control slots: hirelings, fire steed, unicorns, ki-rins, nightmares, drakes, and imps
◦3 control slots: white wyrms, dragons, and golems
•You must have the required control slots available for your mount. Ethereal mounts will require 1 control slot. This means if you go hunting with a dragon (3 control slots) and a drake (2 control slots), you'll have to go on foot.
Pet Loyalty

•Loyalty checks will have a much tighter range. For example, a dragon used to have a chance to obey someone with 50 Animal Taming/50 Animal Lore skill, whereas now they will not obey anyone with less than 90.1/90.1.
•The number of previous owners will no longer affect control.
Pet Bonding

•After a real-time week of ownership, pets may bond with their owner.
•If the animal requires more than 29.1 minimum skill to tame, you must have the minimum skill to tame it before it will bond with you. Examples of animals with 29.1 or lower are horses, ostards, dogs, cats, pack horses, etc..
•Bonded pets will recall with you.
•Bonded pets will turn into pet ghosts when they die.
•Instead of [tame], the [bonded] tag will display above a bonded pet.
•A bond is only broken if the pet goes wild or is released.
Pet Resurrection

•When a bonded pet dies, it turns into a “pet ghost.” This ghost can still obey the movement commands (follow, come, etc.). The pet ghost will not dissipate or lose loyalty, but cannot be stabled.
•Any player can attempt to resurrect the pet with bandages if they have at least 80 Veterinary and 80 Animal Lore. The pet owner or a friend of the pet must be nearby to confirm they want the pet to be resurrected.
•Resurrected pets suffer skill loss. Pets resurrected by their owner receive less of a skill penalty.

Using 3 WWs/Dragons at once was definitely overpowered and it was nerfed long before AoS.

It was changed before AoS...but not long before.

I don't think you fathom how overpowered tamers were in classic, and how even more so they would be given the implementation of pet bonding.

No, I am pretty familiar with tamers...I have played one continuously since the beta.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

Well it's obvious at this point that most of the people in the thread agree on the major issues, but to give much needed credence to the idea will require some sort of outreach on the devs part, perhaps a newsletter poll?

Not of the will you support a classic shard nature, but more what would you like to see in a classic shard? In an ideal world I would have the devs approach some of the more populated retro free shard forums and post the announcement of a possible classic shard along with a short questionnaire.

Honestly I think the best way this shard can come to fruition is if we the players agree on the major points and more or less allow EA to hammer out some of the micro issues that will likely never be agreed on completely, either that or just say majority rules on said issues.

But since there are a handful of people here who have done most of the discussing, it isn't like they can justify pitching a new shard idea on the back of these few threads and it will show that the devs are treating it like a real priority.

I think there is certainly a huge potential draw here for EA but I also understand it is a business first. It would be absolutely amazing if we could hear back from Cal or another dev on getting something like this put together?

Anyways just my two cents, keep up the civil discussions everyone and lets remember that no matter how passionate we all may be about the game, we are talking to real people who have real feelings on the other side.

 

[woolygimp]

•Loyalty checks will have a much tighter range. For example, a dragon used to have a chance to obey someone with 50 Animal Taming/50 Animal Lore skill, whereas now they will not obey anyone with less than 90.1/90.1.

Really don't like this change. If a low level tamer can afford to buy a pet from another then it should be encouraged, as long as the "difficulty to control introduced in the 1999 patch" remains.

Pet control slots is one of the only changes I think they should make to the classic ruleset. That and maybe tweak vendors.

 

[Derium of ls]

Well it's obvious at this point that most of the people in the thread agree on the major issues, but to give much needed credence to the idea will require some sort of outreach on the devs part, perhaps a newsletter poll?

Not of the will you support a classic shard nature, but more what would you like to see in a classic shard? In an ideal world I would have the devs approach some of the more populated retro free shard forums and post the announcement of a possible classic shard along with a short questionnaire.

Honestly I think the best way this shard can come to fruition is if we the players agree on the major points and more or less allow EA to hammer out some of the micro issues that will likely never be agreed on completely, either that or just say majority rules on said issues.

But since there are a handful of people here who have done most of the discussing, it isn't like they can justify pitching a new shard idea on the back of these few threads and it will show that the devs are treating it like a real priority.

I think there is certainly a huge potential draw here for EA but I also understand it is a business first. It would be absolutely amazing if we could hear back from Cal or another dev on getting something like this put together?

Anyways just my two cents, keep up the civil discussions everyone and lets remember that no matter how passionate we all may be about the game, we are talking to real people who have real feelings on the other side.

I think we the players should create a pretty long "survey" where you can vote on all of these issues, pass it on to EA and have them post it, majority rules on the answers.

as long as there are enough questions it will curb people who really don't care from messing up the real answers, why would they want to answer 50-100 questions about a server they won't play on?

 

[Cal_Mythic]

Well it's obvious at this point that most of the people in the thread agree on the major issues, but to give much needed credence to the idea will require some sort of outreach on the devs part, perhaps a newsletter poll?

Not of the will you support a classic shard nature, but more what would you like to see in a classic shard? In an ideal world I would have the devs approach some of the more populated retro free shard forums and post the announcement of a possible classic shard along with a short questionnaire.

Honestly I think the best way this shard can come to fruition is if we the players agree on the major points and more or less allow EA to hammer out some of the micro issues that will likely never be agreed on completely, either that or just say majority rules on said issues.

But since there are a handful of people here who have done most of the discussing, it isn't like they can justify pitching a new shard idea on the back of these few threads and it will show that the devs are treating it like a real priority.

I think there is certainly a huge potential draw here for EA but I also understand it is a business first. It would be absolutely amazing if we could hear back from Cal or another dev on getting something like this put together?

Anyways just my two cents, keep up the civil discussions everyone and lets remember that no matter how passionate we all may be about the game, we are talking to real people who have real feelings on the other side.

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

 

[Derium of ls]

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

whoa whoa whoa! so you DO actually care about this?

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

I think we the players should create a pretty long "survey" where you can vote on all of these issues, pass it on to EA and have them post it, majority rules on the answers.

as long as there are enough questions it will curb people who really don't care from messing up the real answers, why would they want to answer 50-100 questions about a server they won't play on?

I agree with the sentiment however then you come up against an entire new micro argument "who should draft up the questions?" I realize you said we the players but it's just who puts the stamp on it?

Also theres nothing to say that some of the current subscriber base who never experienced the old days as we did wouldn't be interested in at least having a try at it.

So when making a questionnaire you need enough questions to get solid data but not so many that you alienate all but the fringe element.

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

Forgive me Master your ninja skills are without equal. *bow*

 

[Derium of ls]

I agree with the sentiment however then you come up against an entire new micro argument "who should draft up the questions?" I realize you said we the players but it's just who puts the stamp on it?

Also theres nothing to say that some of the current subscriber base who never experienced the old days as we did wouldn't be interested in at least having a try at it.

So when making a questionnaire you need enough questions to get solid data but not so many that you alienate all but the fringe element.



Forgive me Master your ninja skills are without equal. *bow*

I never said it would be easy by any means. I think what we would have to do is compare UO 1998ish (the 'vote leader') with today (minus the AoS item based crap) and look for what made game play changes and go from there. List them all out in a long post and let other players on stratics, uoforums, ect add in things we might have missed.

after you have all the data, you could even break it down into sections; Taming, crafting, rares market ect so when people go to cast their vote they can skip over sections they might not be interested in having a voice in (bet your Butt I'd vote on them all )

of course before you submit it to EA it would have to have plenty of 'Air time' so people can tell their old UO buddies to come vote and make sure most people know it's going on.

as for who would draft it up, pretty much anyone could do it as long as it's simply comparing old UO to todays UO. I of course have in mind a few people who I think would do better than others at it, but again, this is a community and as such a natural leader would emerge.

again, it's just a bad thought out idea on my part

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

again, it's just a bad thought out idea on my part

The idea has much merit, it's just the more that has to be hammered out by the players the longer it will take to get off the ground, I do agree that we would have to give people a fair amount of time to gather friends and such so I propose this.

We the players put together a solid questionnaire, once we have agreed on the list we need to get Cal to put the stamp on it and allow the devs to send it out to the current subscriber base, and then perhaps we can further do our part by posting it on forums like Second Age or just e-mailing to our old friends who have been out of it for a while.

Of course the problem with the second half of my own suggestion is obvious, the questions sent by a dev will allow them to mine the data from their own subscriber base, but if we send it out to people who we know we would have to get their feedback into the system, I'm sure I am making this harder than it needs to be.

In any event what say you all to the idea?

 

[Derium of ls]

The idea has much merit, it's just the more that has to be hammered out by the players the longer it will take to get off the ground, I do agree that we would have to give people a fair amount of time to gather friends and such so I propose this.

We the players put together a solid questionnaire, once we have agreed on the list we need to get Cal to put the stamp on it and allow the devs to send it out to the current subscriber base, and then perhaps we can further do our part by posting it on forums like Second Age or just e-mailing to our old friends who have been out of it for a while.

Of course the problem with the second half of my own suggestion is obvious, the questions sent by a dev will allow them to mine the data from their own subscriber base, but if we send it out to people who we know we would have to get their feedback into the system, I'm sure I am making this harder than it needs to be.

In any event what say you all to the idea?

I think the worse that can happen is it doesn't work, BUT! we will further send the message that us players are serious about wanting the classic server even more.

if anyone would like to attempt this, please count me in on helping to arrange it.

 

[Unsatisfied]

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

Well we're all very glad your actually watching. Now give us some info on if you like where were even heading with any of this! lol

 

[Unsatisfied]

I think rather than bickering and attacking each other, we need to re-focus.

Guido is right, I have let myself get mired down in the muck slinging, and this thread was not supposed to devolve into that.

So, with that said...I am going to re-list what I think are the "must haves" for a Classic Shard...based on what has been said previously.

- T2A Ruleset and Landmass
- Necessary bug fixes through current day, as applicable to the era being represented
- No expansion skills (Bushido, Chiv, Necro, etc.)
- Fel ruleset only
- Proper penalties for rampant PKing (Stat loss...possibly on death instead of rez, no use of towns other than Buc's Den, can only rez by player or at chaos shrine)
- Maintanence and future updates by the dev staff including the implementation of tougher penalties for out of control PKing if not solved by what is listed above
- No neon colors, artifacts, garrish tilesets, etc...the shard should LOOK classic as well
- No powerscrolls
- No transfers to or from the shard
- No AoS item properties
- Skill and Stat locks
- Guildstones...even if decorative only

And still being debated...

- Custom housing
- Pet Control slots/bonding
- Future addition of Ilshenar
- Exact housing rules (texas justice, current access list system, original free-for-all sytem)
- Apparently now mounts have come into question ??? I would refuse to play on a shard without mounts...but this is not only about me

Some ideas that have been thrown out that should be considered...

- Better mechanics for player run towns
- Better bounty system
- Order vs. Chaos (or even the Good vs. Evil system that was discussed prior to UO:R)
- Allowing an additional house on this shard that does not affect current houses


Is there anything I have forgotten to include? Is there anything anyone would like to add to this list?

The only big thing I can see that you've missed is no Item insurance/bless deeds (apart for clothing bless deeds which I really dont care if they are in or out cos its purely cosmetic)

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

The only big thing I can see that you've missed is no Item insurance/bless deeds (apart for clothing bless deeds which I really dont care if they are in or out cos its purely cosmetic)

I think this is one of those goes without saying issues, since most of us agree on T2A insurance is pretty much already out the door. But it should be clarified nonetheless I suppose.

I'd actually like to take the time to thank Cal and any other devs following the thread, firstly for giving us a legitimate forum to voice our desire, and secondly for keeping up with it, some more in depth commentary would be appreciated but even as it is just knowing you guys have gone this far for us is something I am extremely grateful for.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

The only big thing I can see that you've missed is no Item insurance/bless deeds (apart for clothing bless deeds which I really dont care if they are in or out cos its purely cosmetic)

I just lumped insurance in with AoS...but yes, insurance is a deal breaker in my book.

I don't really care about bless deeds...as long as they are extraordinarily rare...but I wouldn't complain if we didn't have them either.

 

[tenduil]

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

Perhaps something we could accomplish relatively easily that would help our case would be if we had a 'soft' number from the business dept (or whatever) showing the required number of new subscriptions to make another shard + required work for any 'difficulty' of creating a classic shard?

Somebody with some stats knowledge and the cost factors should be able to come up with this pretty quickly... ie probably a day. Then we could run a poll pulling non-subscription players to the poll and try to get a half way accurate poll. Say 1000 new subs are needed maybe we could get 1500+ people and make it seem viable?
I know relying on something like that would be 'iffy' at best but that's just off the top of my head. Maybe something more exact would be better but there has to be some intersect between the business sense of paying for it and the non-subscription players interested in it.

 

[Unsatisfied]

I think this is one of those goes without saying issues, since most of us agree on T2A insurance is pretty much already out the door. But it should be clarified nonetheless I suppose.

So did I but.... (from about 40 posts ago)

An Only Fel shard with insurance is the way forward. Seige has shown that pvpers want to have insurance. This will take 1 day to implement, not 1.5 years of development and then another year of bug fixing.

No no no no no no sorry no! Insurance is one of the biggest no no's imaginable! And I'm sure almost everyone in this post will and have already agreed there. Risk vs reward. A death should mean something and slow you down if only untill you restock. Insurance helps kill an econemy, especially the crafting world.

As far as people on seige wanting insurance, I don't play it but I can see why they would want it cos it's aos rules, to be any competition I'm sure you need good gear which is extremely costly to lose. But this aos, gear uber gear based game is exactly what were trying to lose.

Insurance = no

and

Siege has shown because of its lack of players as opposed to production shards, that "paying" pvpers want insurance. With uber faction arties and imbuing anyone can make a very good suit cheaply.

But again, Siege is people playing with "uber" items. This is missing the whole point of our beg for a classic shard. I guarentee you will have little to no support for insurance on a classic shard. Whats the point of a crafter if everyone gets a suit of invul armour and a vanq weapon and insures it? Repairing. Thats it. Youve just cut out a massive play style who arnt going to be very happy with insurance. Next on the list what to people get for killing someone in battle? a little bit of gold and some regs, half the fun of pvping against someone who had a vanq and good armour in the classic days was that if you were good enough to best them, they lost the items they were using. Again risk vs reward, thats one of the key parts of classic UO.

No one seemed to pick up on this thats why I thought it should be added to the list "no item insurance" because there was clearly someone tryin to sneak that one of the biggest no no's in there

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Yeah...insurance on a classic shard is a definite no...unless the cost to insure an item is like $10,000 per item.

If you are willing to fork over 70 or 80 grand every time you die on a classic shard, then more power to you...

 

[Llewen]

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

This isn't meant to be a butt kiss or anything, and it is totally off topic, but is anyone else blown away by the clear evidence these days that we are being listened to? I've never experienced this with any other dev team, ever. Hell, not even my old pnp DM's used to obviously listen to as much input as this dev team is.

Just kudos, and thanks. I don't care whether you agree, or disagree with me on anything, it's just nice to know that you all care, and that we are all being listened to...

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

This isn't meant to be a butt kiss or anything, and it is totally off topic, but is anyone else blown away by the clear evidence these days that we are being listened to? I've never experienced this with any other dev team, ever. Hell, not even my old pnp DM's used to obviously listen to as much input as this dev team is.

Just kudos, and thanks. I don't care whether you agree, or disagree with me on anything, it's just nice to know that you all care, and that we are all being listened to...

I agree completely and I noticed not just in this thread, but also see the interaction with Mark in the Heroes vs Villains thread, this is the kind of interaction that is needed to craft a truely amazing game, no PR guys or middle men, just straight subscriber to dev talk.

Even if the Devs don't always agree with us and vice versa it is just good to be able to have that open line of communication and I believe it's where many other MMORPG's fall short.

And what's great about it is you get treated like a person with this kind of interaction and not just another number. It's obvious the UO team has a good deal of passion about the game just as we do and to see the sharing of ideas brings a smile to my face even though I haven't logged into UO in years, it actually portends great things to come should it continue.

I've also seen such an amazing amount of actual discussion in this thread, people are giving and taking in the discussion. That can only be a good thing because when the walls come down and some kind of compromise can be made it opens the door just a little more in regards to making this thing a reality.

 

[Derium of ls]

I am torn on how to feel, we hear all the time UO was almost shut down, we lost the guy who begged to keep UO alive. but out of nowhere the Devs are finally listening to players, customer service has been getting GOOD reviews lately... It's confusing! maybe the Devs are taking the possible shutdown of UO personal and they are trying to make us happy so we stop leaving the game? I hate to be negative about it, so instead I'll take it as UO is inching it's way back

 

[Longest Journey]

I think rather than bickering and attacking each other, we need to re-focus.

Guido is right, I have let myself get mired down in the muck slinging, and this thread was not supposed to devolve into that.

So, with that said...I am going to re-list what I think are the "must haves" for a Classic Shard...based on what has been said previously.

- T2A Ruleset and Landmass
- Necessary bug fixes through current day, as applicable to the era being represented
- No expansion skills (Bushido, Chiv, Necro, etc.)
- Fel ruleset only
- Proper penalties for rampant PKing (Stat loss...possibly on death instead of rez, no use of towns other than Buc's Den, can only rez by player or at chaos shrine)
- Maintanence and future updates by the dev staff including the implementation of tougher penalties for out of control PKing if not solved by what is listed above
- No neon colors, artifacts, garrish tilesets, etc...the shard should LOOK classic as well
- No powerscrolls
- No transfers to or from the shard
- No AoS item properties
- Skill and Stat locks
- Guildstones...even if decorative only

Very good. But youre missing crafting upgrades:

-Allow bow crafters to repair bows

-Allow Tailors to craft and repair bone armor and repair leather/studded leather armor.

-Allow carpenters to craft all staves and clubs and repair them along with wooden shields.

3 little upgrades that will make crafting logical.

Guild stones should be manditory.

The statloss penalty part is a bit redundant. It doesnt matter if it happens when they die or when they rez. Its going to happen either way. You die and you res and when you die you die. Its a trap situation.

As for reds not being able to use town.......thats the way it always was. They could not enter town and if they did the guards killed them on the spot. NPCs would refuse them service as well, including access to their bank box. It was one of the prices they paid when they became red.

And still being debated...

- Custom housing
- Pet Control slots/bonding
- Future addition of Ilshenar
- Exact housing rules (texas justice, current access list system, original free-for-all sytem)
- Apparently now mounts have come into question ??? I would refuse to play on a shard without mounts...but this is not only about me

Custom housing and Control Slots are AOS systems and have no place in a classic server. Also, cutting them out would mean less for the developers to have to code.

Ilshenar would be okay, so long as the McFarlaine monster designs and steampunk nonsense are eliminated.

Housing rules should match the server era, T2A. You go into a private house you arent friended to, you go grey and the owner can kill you for tresspassing. Public houses are fair game, anyone can enter penalty free unless banned by the owner/friends/co-owner.

How did mounts come into question? How could anyone have a problem with being able to buy a horse and ride it? They have been in since the start of the game, getting rid of them would be foolish.

Some ideas that have been thrown out that should be considered...

- Better mechanics for player run towns
- Better bounty system
- Order vs. Chaos (or even the Good vs. Evil system that was discussed prior to UO:R)
- Allowing an additional house on this shard that does not affect current houses

Player run towns? I dont like the sound of that. This isnt Darkfail or Mortal. There isnt enough room for player run towns. There are the small RP towns that people set up, but they have no effect on gameplay. Also, due to the size of the ingame world, a new landmass would have to be added to accomodate player run towns and all that comes with them.

The bounty system cannot be perfect or improved. Unless there is a way to 100% prevent a red from working with a blue partner to kill them, turn in their head, then split the bounty money, there is no way to prevent murderers from benefiting from the system meant to punish them.

Drop the bounty system completely. Stat loss is enough to knock reds out of the PVP game for a good amount of time to keep things balanced.

Chaos v. Order is a good idea, but the system needs to be fixed. Originally, a guild could only go chaos or order if the GM was of lord or lady fame. Then, once the guild was made order or chaos, all guild members who were not lord or lady were removed from the guild. This needs to be removed so non lord and lady characters are not ejected from the guild.

Adding in addition house designs, such as those from Ren, to choose from is an okay idea.

Is there anything I have forgotten to include? Is there anything anyone would like to add to this list?

Other than the things I posted, no, the list is fine.

 

[Longest Journey]

Not that I've been watching this whole thread or anything

You can watch the thread to your hearts content. But its vague comments like this that mirror those we have recieved in the past in regards to classic servers that tend to break player confidence in development teams.

I dont know what the game is here, but the tounge in cheek stuff has to end. People arent going to return to UO on coyness and smiley faces. If you want people to come back or drop the want for classic servers, you are going to need to be 100% clear on your intentions.

Simply saying "We are thinking about it" isnt clear. As a matter of fact, it is tormentive to those who want classic servers badly and have been asking for them for years.

So, its either:

"Yes, we are working on classic servers and trying to find a way to implement them"

Or

"No, we have no intention to now or ever put in classic servers"

Either way, stop toying with people.

 

[tenduil]

So, its either:

"Yes, we are working on classic servers and trying to find a way to implement them"

Or

"No, we have no intention to now or ever put in classic servers"

Either way, stop toying with people.

Blunt and to the point. It's harsh and some people will say its not that easy... but it really is.

+1 for this.

 

[Derium of ls]

So, its either:

"Yes, we are working on classic servers and trying to find a way to implement them"

Or

"No, we have no intention to now or ever put in classic servers"

Either way, stop toying with people.

I agree also, it really is that simple. and considering he admitted they have been thinking about it for 7 years, it's time to tell us those thoughts.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

You can watch the thread to your hearts content. But its vague comments like this that mirror those we have recieved in the past in regards to classic servers that tend to break player confidence in development teams.

I dont know what the game is here, but the tounge in cheek stuff has to end. People arent going to return to UO on coyness and smiley faces. If you want people to come back or drop the want for classic servers, you are going to need to be 100% clear on your intentions.

Simply saying "We are thinking about it" isnt clear. As a matter of fact, it is tormentive to those who want classic servers badly and have been asking for them for years.

So, its either:

"Yes, we are working on classic servers and trying to find a way to implement them"

Or

"No, we have no intention to now or ever put in classic servers"

Either way, stop toying with people.

You know comments like these do not help at all, neither you or I have a clue what is going on behind closed doors with the devs, have you stopped for a moment to think maybe they have said all they are allowed to say on the topic at the moment?

We cannot focus on what Cal may or may not say down the road, the fact that we have a thread to discuss this means there has been at least some after thought on the matter since the last dev declared that there would be no discussion.

We can also say that we have at least one dev who is closely following the thread, I think that alone shows that there is at least a modicum of interest, instead of calling devs out for no reason and demanding things we should focus on further narrowing down the specifics so that they can be sent out for perspective.

I do understand the frustration I like many of you have also waited for years just to have this be a possibility, but when someone reaches out to you, don't be so quick to slap their hand away.

The things we have to focus on moving forward are not the personal arguments, or the stonewalling but reaching a consensus that might have a chance of getting off the ground.

Otherwise there is no incentive for the devs to take the idea seriously.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Very good. But youre missing crafting upgrades:

-Allow bow crafters to repair bows

-Allow Tailors to craft and repair bone armor and repair leather/studded leather armor.

-Allow carpenters to craft all staves and clubs and repair them along with wooden shields.

3 little upgrades that will make crafting logical.

I have no issues with above. Those were not present in the Classic Era...but I agree with you...they make sense and should have been included from day 1.

Guild stones should be manditory.

I miss my guildstone more than any one thing, besides friends, I have ever lost in the game. I lament the removal of guildstones, because they were a record of what once was.

BUT...if everything else was in place...would you NOT play without them? That to me is my definition of 'mandatory'.

The statloss penalty part is a bit redundant. It doesnt matter if it happens when they die or when they rez. Its going to happen either way. You die and you res and when you die you die. Its a trap situation.

No! No it isn't the same! How many times have you seen ghosts standing in one spot near a moongate?? This is a LAME workaround for murder counts that should have been addresssed LONG ago.

If murderers had to actually 'sweat it out' while burning off counts, they might actually consider what they are doing.

This one to me is almost a deal breaker. If you do the crime, you should actually have to do the freakin' time...and that doesn't include being asleep.

Ilshenar would be okay, so long as the McFarlaine monster designs and steampunk nonsense are eliminated.

Agreed...that s**t is awful.

Player run towns? I dont like the sound of that. This isnt Darkfail or Mortal. There isnt enough room for player run towns

Sorry, but I am calling BS on this one. Player run towns have been a part of UO since beta...up until the Tram/Fel split. Arx Draconis? Ring a bell?

The bounty system cannot be perfect or improved.

Not true. There is NOTHING that cannot be improved upon (besides Cabo Wab tequilla )


Other that that...we are solid.

 

[Derium of ls]

You know comments like these do not help at all, neither you or I have a clue what is going on behind closed doors with the devs, have you stopped for a moment to think maybe they have said all they are allowed to say on the topic at the moment?

We cannot focus on what Cal may or may not say down the road, the fact that we have a thread to discuss this means there has been at least some after thought on the matter since the last dev declared that there would be no discussion.

We can also say that we have at least one dev who is closely following the thread, I think that alone shows that there is at least a modicum of interest, instead of calling devs out for no reason and demanding things we should focus on further narrowing down the specifics so that they can be sent out for perspective.

I do understand the frustration I like many of you have also waited for years just to have this be a possibility, but when someone reaches out to you, don't be so quick to slap their hand away.

The things we have to focus on moving forward are not the personal arguments, or the stonewalling but reaching a consensus that might have a chance of getting off the ground.

Otherwise there is no incentive for the devs to take the idea seriously.

I know they are limited with what they can normally tell us, but what are they afraid of? if they tell us "maybe" and all of a sudden thousands of old UO players get their hopes up? well if that happened then EA would now have their answer about how popular it would be. If they tell us and the reaction is not much, then again, they have a good answer. So at this point I think giving us a better answer on it would in turn give them a better idea if they are on the right path or not... IMHO

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

I know they are limited with what they can normally tell us, but what are they afraid of? if they tell us "maybe" and all of a sudden thousands of old UO players get their hopes up? well if that happened then EA would now have their answer about how popular it would be. If they tell us and the reaction is not much, then again, they have a good answer. So at this point I think giving us a better answer on it would in turn give them a better idea if they are on the right path or not... IMHO

I get what you are saying and I sympathize with the frustration, but what I am eluding to is that they probably aren't afraid to tell us anything, it might just be as simple as whoever they report to going "Now don't go off promising those vets a free shard or anything just yet"

I just like that we have some kind of attention from the devs, it isn't the kind of thing that can be held off forever on in any event. I mean the idea is obviously picking up steam at least in this forum, if we don't see some kind of steady progress after a reasonable amount of time it may then be safe to assume it isn't likely but we should just continue doing what we have been doing and that is refining the concept and the important questions that need to be put together.

One step at a time guys and girls.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I don't think anyone has ever asked or a "free shard" here.

 

[Longest Journey]

I have no issues with above. Those were not present in the Classic Era...but I agree with you...they make sense and should have been included from day 1.

Cool.

I miss my guildstone more than any one thing, besides friends, I have ever lost in the game. I lament the removal of guildstones, because they were a record of what once was.

BUT...if everything else was in place...would you NOT play without them? That to me is my definition of 'mandatory'.

I wouldnt not play if guild stones werent in, but they were a part of that era and we want as much accuracy as possible.

Besides, guildstones made it feel official. Like you actually had a monument, a tangeable item that symbolized a guild was for real. Dont know if that makes sense, but thats why Id want to see them brought back.

No! No it isn't the same! How many times have you seen ghosts standing in one spot near a moongate?? This is a LAME workaround for murder counts that should have been addresssed LONG ago.

If murderers had to actually 'sweat it out' while burning off counts, they might actually consider what they are doing.

This one to me is almost a deal breaker. If you do the crime, you should actually have to do the freakin' time...and that doesn't include being asleep.

Still knocks them out of the PvP game for an extended time. Thats why long term counts should be implimented.

Think of it this way. The Red has 2 choices:

A.) Stand around dead for days waiting off the murder count

or

B.) Rez, take the stat loss, and have to rework the character back up for days.

Either way, they are put out of commission for a while. And thats what its about, knocking the character out of play, not hurting the player.

Agreed...that s**t is awful.

Indeed it is.

Sorry, but I am calling BS on this one. Player run towns have been a part of UO since beta...up until the Tram/Fel split. Arx Draconis? Ring a bell?

Well, thats why I said, the RP towns were okay. I think I remember Arx, but the one RP town I remember most is Kinship Village from Catskills.

RP towns are okay, I have no problem with them. Im just worried about people calling for LARGE scale towns and stuff like that. It'll eat up too much housing space.

But again, I have no problem with a group of house owning people who live next to eachother forming an RP village of their own.

Unless youre talking about being able to hire NPC guards to protect and patrol these small villages, then, sure that sounds okay. Granted, those guards would have to be weaker than the City Guards, no one hit kills, but still formitable.

Not true. There is NOTHING that cannot be improved upon (besides Cabo Wab tequilla )

It really cant be improve or fixed. The bounty system has one, massive glaring flaw that cannot be corrected. Unless there is a way to stop a red from partnering with a blue to split the bounty on the reds head, then there is no way to stop them from profiting from the system meant to punish them.

It should just be dropped completely.

 

[Longest Journey]

I get what you are saying and I sympathize with the frustration, but what I am eluding to is that they probably aren't afraid to tell us anything, it might just be as simple as whoever they report to going "Now don't go off promising those vets a free shard or anything just yet"

I just like that we have some kind of attention from the devs, it isn't the kind of thing that can be held off forever on in any event. I mean the idea is obviously picking up steam at least in this forum, if we don't see some kind of steady progress after a reasonable amount of time it may then be safe to assume it isn't likely but we should just continue doing what we have been doing and that is refining the concept and the important questions that need to be put together.

One step at a time guys and girls.

Aparently, you dont remember that this has happened in the past. Developers have given vague mentionings of classic servers, gotten people's hopes up, then turned around and not delivered. Thats something Im tired of seeing. It seems every new developement team that has come in with UO have done this and its getting old.

So this little attention youre so happy about, its not trust worthy. The coyness and vague answers and tounge in cheek need to end. These developers need to give a definitive answer as to their intentions of a classic server. Just saying "Oh, we're thinking about it" isnt good enough.

Personally, I think Cal just mentioned classic servers to get people to re-sub to UO in some lame attempt at trying to boost profits, make it look like the game is getting people back, but its all under false pretenses.

But thats just my theory on it.

But the point is, the time for games, giggles, girly coyness are over. Its time for straight answers and clearly definied intent.

Thus, I say it again.

Its either:

"Yes, we are planning on releasing classic servers, we just need to determine the details of them"

or

"No, we have no intention of making classic servers"

Stop messing with people.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Besides, guildstones made it feel official. Like you actually had a monument, a tangeable item that symbolized a guild was for real. Dont know if that makes sense, but thats why Id want to see them brought back.

Preaching to the choir! Preaching to the choir...

Still knocks them out of the PvP game for an extended time. Thats why long term counts should be implimented.

Days of what? Sleeping? Doing things in real life?

Screw that.

Make them 'burn off' the counts in game. I think it is only fair.

Do the crime, do the time.

Unless youre talking about being able to hire NPC guards to protect and patrol these small villages, then, sure that sounds okay.

When I posted this, I don't think anyone had suggested anything else.

This is all I am referring to.

It really cant be improve or fixed. The bounty system has one, massive glaring flaw that cannot be corrected. Unless there is a way to stop a red from partnering with a blue to split the bounty on the reds head, then there is no way to stop them from profiting from the system meant to punish them.

It should just be dropped completely.

Nope. Disagree.

Did you read anything I posted about it?

There are ways to make it work...don't be such a defeatist!

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

the time for games, giggles, girly coyness are over. Its time for straight answers and clearly definied intent.

BAD! BAD!

Girls are not the problem!

Thus, I say it again.

Its either:

"Yes, we are planning on releasing classic servers, we just need to determine the details of them"

or

"No, we have no intention of making classic servers"

Stop messing with people.

I agree...besides that whole anti-woman thing, but give them a chance. Let them hear us, and THEN make a decision.

 

[Longest Journey]

See what Cal and the other devs need to realize is, the game isnt working the way it is. Players arent coming back in the amounts the game needs, nor is the game functioning properly. The game hasnt been right in years.

Now, the sad part is, during this time players have told the developers what they want since Reniassance: Classic Servers. And when you think about it, using the last 8 years or so as evidence, Classic Servers are the only option left. Continuing with the post AOS content, its a losing battle. Its not because of other MMOs, because if youve actually played them and read the general chats and talked to the players, you'd see there are a lot of old UO players who would gladly leave the next gen graphics of games like AOC, WoW, and LoTRO and come back to the 2d sprites and game play of classic UO.

The only way to get these people to come back is to finally give them what they have been asking for. Vaguely aluding to possibly considering classic servers wont do it. Thats just more of the BS we've been handed over the years being tossed in our faces once more.

You want to bring players back? Make the classic servers, The Second Age era, and you'll see the biggest influx of players UO has seen in nearly a decade.

 

[Longest Journey]

BAD! BAD!

Girls are not the problem!




I agree...besides that whole anti-woman thing, but give them a chance. Let them hear us, and THEN make a decision.

I wasnt trying to be anti woman.

Its like, when a school girl likes a boy and she says to him "Maybe I like you, maybe I dont" then giggles at him? Well, this situation is sort of the same.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

See what Cal and the other devs need to realize is, the game isnt working the way it is. Players arent coming back in the amounts the game needs, nor is the game functioning properly. The game hasnt been right in years.

Now, the sad part is, during this time players have told the developers what they want since Reniassance: Classic Servers. And when you think about it, using the last 8 years or so as evidence, Classic Servers are the only option left. Continuing with the post AOS content, its a losing battle. Its not because of other MMOs, because if youve actually played them and read the general chats and talked to the players, you'd see there are a lot of old UO players who would gladly leave the next gen graphics of games like AOC, WoW, and LoTRO and come back to the 2d sprites and game play of classic UO.

The only way to get these people to come back is to finally give them what they have been asking for. Vaguely aluding to possibly considering classic servers wont do it. Thats just more of the BS we've been handed over the years being tossed in our faces once more.

You want to bring players back? Make the classic servers, The Second Age era, and you'll see the biggest influx of players UO has seen in nearly a decade.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

We need to hire Robert Wagner to be our spokesman!

Everyone listens to Robert Wagner!

 

[Longest Journey]

Days of what? Sleeping? Doing things in real life?

Screw that.

Make them 'burn off' the counts in game. I think it is only fair.

Do the crime, do the time.

Well, they are burning off the count. Their character has to sit there, for days on end, dead, useless, and if they rez, they lose stats. Either way, the character is rendered useless for a while and it knocks them out of the PvP game.

Sounds to me like you want to punish the player. Thats not going to go over too well with paying customers.

When I posted this, I don't think anyone had suggested anything else.

This is all I am referring to.

Nope. Disagree.

Did you read anything I posted about it?

There are ways to make it work...don't be such a defeatist!

Ive read what you posted, but nothing you posted stopped the problem. You can make blues register as bounty hunters till the cows come home, but as soon as the gold for the bounty is in their pocket/backpack/bankbox, its theirs to do with as they please. Nothing is stopping them from going to their red buddy whom they just collected the bounty on and saying "Hey man, heres your cut" and giving him 500k of a 1 million gold bounty.

So, unless you can come up with a definitive, 100% fool proof, air tight, loophole-less way of preventing that, then the bounty system is a waste of time.

Its not being a defeatist, its being a realist.

 

[Derium of ls]

Aparently, you dont remember that this has happened in the past. Developers have given vague mentionings of classic servers, gotten people's hopes up, then turned around and not delivered. Thats something Im tired of seeing. It seems every new developement team that has come in with UO have done this and its getting old.

So this little attention youre so happy about, its not trust worthy. The coyness and vague answers and tounge in cheek need to end. These developers need to give a definitive answer as to their intentions of a classic server. Just saying "Oh, we're thinking about it" isnt good enough.

Personally, I think Cal just mentioned classic servers to get people to re-sub to UO in some lame attempt at trying to boost profits, make it look like the game is getting people back, but its all under false pretenses.

But thats just my theory on it.

But the point is, the time for games, giggles, girly coyness are over. Its time for straight answers and clearly definied intent.

Thus, I say it again.

Its either:

"Yes, we are planning on releasing classic servers, we just need to determine the details of them"

or

"No, we have no intention of making classic servers"

Stop messing with people.

EA already has a not so good image with people, but the fact that putting up a classic server is NOT much work to do (how many are out there as free shards? yes I know EA would have more responsiblity but still.) and people are waving money in their face and they have spent SEVEN YEARS screwing around with the idea... If this was any other game out there, even WoW people would have left and the game would have gone under by now. the fact we are STILL here waiting shows our dedication to Ultima Online, I'm honestly to the point where something needs to break. Force me to go find a new game/company to give my money to, or let me start to rally old UO players to give you their money!

 

[Derium of ls]

also, 99% of people agree EA made a HUGE mistake with the way they handed UO, you would think they would want to save some face and prove if they had the chance to do it all over again, they would get it right... there is NO other MMO EVER who has had the chance to go back and get it right, but here is EA pissing it away.

/rant... for now

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Sounds to me like you want to punish the player.

Well...did someone else make their decisions for them?

Seriously! They are the ones that decided to prey upon the innocent...no one else.

Let them just deal with the consequences of their choices. If they are really as 'l337' as they think they are...they won't have to worry about it...right?

Ive read what you posted

Really??

but as soon as the gold for the bounty is in their pocket/backpack/bankbox, its theirs to do with as they please.

I am feeling lazy right now, so I will not dig up the post I made about taking gold rewards out of the bounty system, and replacing it with a points based system that allows bounty hunters to select from unique items that are only different in aesthetic appearance.

Really man...do your homework! rolleyes:

(just kidding with ya!)

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

also, 99% of people agree EA made a HUGE mistake with the way they handed UO, you would think they would want to save some face and prove if they had the chance to do it all over again, they would get it right... there is NO other MMO EVER who has had the chance to go back and get it right, but here is EA pissing it away.

Not sure just yet that they are "pissing it away"...but I think they have to realize that there are players that are willing to 'forgive and forget'. That's pretty rare!

We could have all just walked away, and some have, but we are willing to give them another chance! How crazy is that? Games hold people's attention in nano-seconds...but here we are, asking EA to take a chance...so that we can GIVE THEM OUR MONEY!

Craziness!

 

[Derium of ls]

Not sure just yet that they are "pissing it away"...but I think they have to realize that there are players that are willing to 'forgive and forget'. That's pretty rare!

We could have all just walked away, and some have, but we are willing to give them another chance! How crazy is that? Games hold people's attention in nano-seconds...but here we are, asking EA to take a chance...so that we can GIVE THEM OUR MONEY!

Craziness!

they haven't pissed away their chance completely, but they are currently doing so. I'll bet any amount of money that everyday that goes by one more UO vent decided it's been too long and moved onto another game, stopped checking up on UO or just plain gave up. Right now I'm passing any info I can onto 6 old UO players, what if I give up? they won't come here and look on their own. and I'm close to giving up, it's been a long fight. But I'm just feeling more and more that it's still chasing a 'dream' that won't ever be.

I'll stop the ranting because this thread does not need anymore of it, it should be about gathering players info. I'm sorry, just annoyed I got to play a great game for 6 years then spent longer than 6 years waiting to play it again