I sometimes wonder if the solution to that debate would be two Classic Shards. One that is pre-Renaissance. One that is pre-Publish 16 or pre-Age of Shadows. You could have all the tangible content we currently have. It would just be a different system. (i.e. you might find a Durable Silver Bokuto of Ruin and still be in keeping with the features of a Classic Shard.)
If they were to do something like that though I would expect that changes be made to Siege Perilous so that it maintains its own draw.
During most of the discussion in the "classic" threads, I believe that pretty much everyone that supported such shards, were agreed they
had to be pre-AoS. A return to a game not so item-centric or displaying properties and statistics to the n'th degree, was clearly most popular. When "anti-classic" posters ask why so many classic supporters aren't playing Siege, the answer is simple... because it has AoS content.
The next "debate" seemed to be around PK's/thieves, though this was mostly introduced by "anti-classic" posters. The consensus of opinion (disregarding those simply against anything "classic" for the sake of it, who wouldn't likely play anyway...), was that on any pre-AoS/pre-Ren "classic" shard, there wouldn't
be any "sheep" who would be victimised by "wolves". The vast majority of players would know fully what game they were playing and therefore there wouldn't really be any "sheep" or "victims". Players would know the harshness of the environment in which they were playing and would welcome the challenge.
That said though, there did seem to be support for having both a single facet pre-AoS and pre-Ren option (completely open, single ruleset, non-con PvP), alongside a trammel based pre-AoS option, which would be mainly PvM and no non-con PvP.
At the heart of the matter essentially, is a great many players lost interest, because of one, if not two, major sweeping changes to the dynamics of the game and gameplay. Not everyone who left was a PK or griefer, by a very wide margin. Yes, they were there for sure, but are there any less griefers in the game today? I would suggest not. They just grief in different ways is all.
Indeed, I also suspect that many of those former players who left, would still be around playing UO, had there been a non-AoS Siege option provided at the time that expansion came to pass.
This leads me to Siege getting the love it clearly deserves. I believe it fully deserves the fixes the players have been asking for, for so long. I do have to wonder if Siege would survive though, if classic shards were to be created.
Either way, I do believe providing classic gameplay options would be one of, if not
the, biggest ways to encourage more players. When we face facts, this
is a niche game
with a niche market. Much of that niche market is no longer playing the game. A focused effort at getting those players back playing UO, would I believe, be far more economically beneficial. Otherwise, if we're facing the facts here... it's trying to sell what's essentially an old game, to a market that's got used to far superior graphics, entirely different gameplay, along with a huge selection of other games to choose from.
Target an audience that
wants to play the game, not one that wouldn't bat an eyelid at it.
I imagine there could be a 'Production', 'Classic', and 'Hardcore' Shard System; each with their own appeal.
This would be great.
People who've played or play UO, love the game for many different reasons, simply because of the scope of options available.
When major changes are made to the game, which effectively reduce many of the gameplay options, or change the game almost into something else completely, then you have a key reason for people leaving.
Providing three "options" as you suggest, would offer much broader appeal, instead of just appeasing the diminishing numbers still playing the game in its current format.
