Year End Approaching...No Classic Shard

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

First of all, I'd like to thank Cal for stepping in to support my claim. Secondly, I'd like to take a moment to thank all of the other UO veterans that continued to support the idea/concept of a Classic Shard.

It is something that some of us see as that last chance for us to return to/remain as Ultima Online customers. Hopefully that has weighed into the decision, which I am sure was not all Cal's to make. If the answer is indeed no (as I am pretty certain it will be), we, the classic UO community, must realize that this is not a personal desicion, and that the posts of anti-Classic shard posters had absolutely nothing at all to do with the decision (this I know FOR A FACT). If there is to be no EA classic shard, it means two things:

1) EA would not agree to committing the funds to it because they do not feel it is a viable option.

and more importantly

2) UO is in the end of its life cycle.

If the development team is spread so thinly as to not be able to produce full expansions, or something like a classic shard, then you can bet that it means that they are down to just a skeleton crew...working on an even leaner budget.

So, with that...we wait. But once the answer comes...just remember, UO was once a game we loved, and there are other options for seeing the gameplay we missed. Don't hesitate to contact me privately if you would like more information regarding those options. If EA abandons the Classic Community, it doesn't mean that the Classic Community has to abandon UO.

 

[kelmo]

*nods*

 

[Tina Small]

I'm probably being terribly naive here, but for some reason in the back of my mind I can't shake the thought that MAYBE the events with Virtue Bane could be leading up to the birth of a new shard or major changes in the game. My guess is that Virtue Bane or someone else will get his hands on the Crystal of Duplicity and somehow events will transpire so that we end up with either a new "classic" shard and/or forcing all characters on existing shards to join a faction.

Again, just wild guesses based on not knowing a whole lot about Virtue Bane, the Crystal of Duplicity and why anyone would want it, and a whole lot of actual and proposed additions and changes to the game that have been piling up for the last year or so and Cal's still-to-be-explained comment in August 2009 about bringing the wild west back to UO.

Anyone else thinking along these lines?

 

[HD2300]

This was why one of the largest Classic freeshards was shutdown...

"Some players are really crazy. If you accept the word "crazy" can be applied to an individual, then statistically some crazy people will play virtual worlds. A user base the size of EverQuest's will include several bona fide psychopaths.

...

But, I suppose the point is that, if virtual worlds are psychopath magnets - *** was a ****ing black hole.

Bartle mentioned that a game the size of EQ would have "several" psychopaths. Well, I think *** surpassed the "several" mark a few times over. And it'd be nice if I were exaggerating, but unfortunately I am not.

....

And the actions themselves weren't a problem. It was always how it was done. At such a frequency, at such a rate, and in such an uncaring style. A lot of these people truly did not care about the game. A lot of these people truly were, even admittedly, out to hurt the game as much as they could. If they didn't like a change, or didn't like something that happened - it's time to ruin the game for everyone else. A selfish attitude fit for the tantrums of a five year old, but it's what happens nonetheless. Basically, as the person running the game, you're being blackmailed into making the ****heads happy at every turn, or they'll do a bunch of really ****ed up **** to spite you and your game for the fact that you're paying attention to another child.. I mean, uhm, player. This obviously cannot happen. Neither can you have people abusing every freedom they've given (and often times going out of the game to meet their terribly sad needs in this respect) every time something doesn't go their way, nor can you find yourself pandering to the rusty side of the coin at every turn for fear of the malicious actions they'll pull if you don't.

For Mission Impossible fans and Uriah...

[YOUTUBE]CRbhE3GRiUE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[AesSedai]

... [what he said]

- Aye, aye. Me too. 2nd ^2.
I agree and second this.. four times already now.
Be well all

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

First of all, I'd like to thank Cal for stepping in to support my claim.

Epic reading comprehension fail, Morgana...

Just to clear things up ... Morgana and I did have a chat, and I misunderstood the question she was asking me.

I thought she was asking if we have server backups for our game, and I said of course.

It was a miscommunication.

In otherwords, no he didn't.

 

[Gunga_Din]

What needs to be done?

Drop the number of US servers to 4. Start allowing free transfers from the cancelled servers to the selected 4. You can then have about 3 EM's per server to enhance live content and you will actually see someone once in awhile when you run around.

I'm not sure on the Asian servers because I have never played there.

Make 1 Classic Server.

I've been playing this game for 12 yrs now and the way of the boosters + paying for items has given me a bad feeling. Something radical has to be done. UO is getting zero exposure other than word of mouth. Most of the MMO world doesn't even know what UO is about. You guys are working with a skeleton crew, why not merge servers, release a classic server and shake up the damn MMO universe.

Do you not realize, if you start a campaign about a classic server, that you will strike lightning in a bottle?

I don't know all the facts or whats the development team has on the table, but I think its time.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Epic reading comprehension fail, Morgana...



In otherwords, no he didn't.

I think it is you that has the problem with reading comprehension.

I said to Cal "Another developer told me you no longer have the server backups from before Trammel, is this true?"

His response "Of course not...that is not true".

Is it somehow my fault that he misunderstood the question? And for the record, this conversation took place MONTHS ago. So when I asked him if I could post the information, he misunderstood what I was asking and thought I meant could I post the information about whether or not they had current backups...due in part to poor wording (mostly because I was counting on him to remember an old conversation) on my part.

But, for what it is worth, I could not care less what you think of me, of Cal, or about anything else on God's green Earth.

I doubt seriously there will ever be a time in your life where you know as much about what goes on in this game as I have.

 

[a slave girl]

First of all, I'd like to thank Cal for stepping in to support my claim.

Epic reading comprehension fail, Morgana...

Just to clear things up ... Morgana and I did have a chat, and I misunderstood the question she was asking me.

I thought she was asking if we have server backups for our game, and I said of course.

It was a miscommunication.

In otherwords, no he didn't.

Yes thank goodness!


I understand that Cal is saying he misunderstood you Morgana, when you asked if they still had the original UO code...


When I first learned about UO free shards, someone told me that the original UO 'code' had been stolen to create them.


I thought that I'd have to erase that tale from my memory .


Now I don't have to.


Thanks Cal, I am not sure why but I've always liked that story.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

I think it is you that has the problem with reading comprehension.

I said to Cal "Another developer told me you no longer have the server backups from before Trammel, is this true?"

His response "Of course not...that is not true".

Is it somehow my fault that he misunderstood the question? And for the record, this conversation took place MONTHS ago. So when I asked him if I could post the information, he misunderstood what I was asking and thought I meant could I post the information about whether or not they had current backups...due in part to poor wording (mostly because I was counting on him to remember an old conversation) on my part.

But, for what it is worth, I could not care less what you think of me, of Cal, or about anything else on God's green Earth.

I doubt seriously there will ever be a time in your life where you know as much about what goes on in this game as I have.

No, his misunderstanding is not your fault. Running with it, however, was. You besmirched Draconi’s name based on the misunderstanding, without bothering to confirm.

And please, spare me the self righteous tripe and e-peen waving re: "knowing things," since you've proven that, in fact, you don't.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I'm probably being terribly naive here, but for some reason in the back of my mind I can't shake the thought that MAYBE the events with Virtue Bane could be leading up to the birth of a new shard or major changes in the game. My guess is that Virtue Bane or someone else will get his hands on the Crystal of Duplicity and somehow events will transpire so that we end up with either a new "classic" shard and/or forcing all characters on existing shards to join a faction.

Again, just wild guesses based on not knowing a whole lot about Virtue Bane, the Crystal of Duplicity and why anyone would want it, and a whole lot of actual and proposed additions and changes to the game that have been piling up for the last year or so and Cal's still-to-be-explained comment in August 2009 about bringing the wild west back to UO.

Anyone else thinking along these lines?

Tina, I don't think you are as far off mark as some people are going to tell you that you are.

There have been a couple of pieces of in game fiction that definitely were put into place to open the door for this type of transition...but if you notice, those things never came into being. Also, it seems as though the fiction is often created after the fact, trailing development.

I might get an immense shock, and wonderful Christmas present...even if late...and we may see a Classic Shard, but I am not holding my breath.

As to the wild west comment...I think some of the events that required players to venture into Fel were tests for this. The result: Mass whining and complaining. I think it is safe to say that UO, as it is today, will remain as it is today until the day it dies. (that could be a tounge twister!)

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

No, his misunderstanding is not your fault. Running with it, however, was. You besmirched Draconi’s name based on the misunderstanding, without bothering to confirm.

And please, spare me the self righteous tripe and e-peen waving re: "knowing things," since you've proven that, in fact, you don't.

Chica, you really need to move beyond yourself.

Draconi is not angry at me in the slightest...neither is Cal.

(this site needs a really good *eyeroll* emote)

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

rolleyes:

It’s not about Draconi or Cal ‘being mad at you’ it’s all about you needing to learn to admit when you're wrong instead if hiding behind semantics and presenting an argument based on spurious "facts."

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

When I first learned about UO free shards, someone told me that the original UO 'code' had been stolen to create them.

Hahaha! That's funny!

I think I should start a UOMythBusters site instead of a ClassicUO site (expansion??)

No, the code was never "stolen". What became of it you might wonder? Well, that is a mystery, isn't it

Freeshards don't use the original server code. They are ran on software that was developed by essentially learning what the client needed, and learning how to feed it to it.

In UO, your client is basically an interpreter. It takes information coming in from the server, and translates that into what you see on your screen. Without getting into too much technical jargon and detail, the way freeshard software works is that it communicates with the client and provides it a similar set of information that an EA server would. This is basically achieved by setting up a "server"...which is just a piece of software...that communicates with the client through specific "ports".

Long story short, the first shard emmulators were the result of someone looking into what the client was "listening" for, and writting software that that would sent information to those same ports. The original UO server code is not needed as long as the client is receiving what it thinks is the correct information.

I hope I am not breaking any rules by saying all of this, but I think it is important to clear up misconceptions, like the one I quoted.

So no, there was no grand espionage, no theft of the server code ala Mission Impossible...just some really smart kids and too much free time on their hands

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

rolleyes:

It’s not about Draconi or Cal ‘being mad at you’ it’s all about you needing to learn to admit when you're wrong instead if hiding behind semantics and presenting an argument based on spurious "facts."

You know...I would, and I could, but I said I wouldn't, so I won't...and we will just have to leave it there because I am not saying anymore on the subject.

 

[Aragon100]

Epic reading comprehension fail, Morgana...

Cal does support Morganas claim, they had a discussion and there was a misunderstanding between them.

Morgana did'nt make anything up, it was her conclusion of the truth.

I thank Cal for getting this sorted out and is still hoping for a yes to a classic shard.

 

[HD2300]

Thanks to the OP for the Bestest Thread Ever.

Yeehaaa

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

@HD2300...you know, you have been board-stalking me for what, 2 years now?

I appreciate the attention, but really...it's time to move on.

But hey, I really appreciate you keeping my threads at or near the top of the active thread list! Thanks for the support!

 

[Babble]

So if I understand it right?
EA is that incompetent that they lost their own server code?
LOL

Guys the gaming industry must have some good jokes for you

 

[HD2300]

"he is on my ignore list..." ??? :loser:

Win with honor, lose with dignity.

 

[Evlar]

Whatever happens, I enjoyed playing UO greatly over the years, but especially so prior to AoS.

A simple preference, nothing more, nothing less. Mostly what kept me playing beyond that was familiarity, little interest in what else was on offer MMO wise, plus the chance to play a game with friends I'd made over the years.

Indeed, I kept up regularly with friends via both "official" UO and "emularor" shards. The latter were usually nothing more than small efforts, hosted by one or another of those friends who happened to have a server spare.

The problem with UO now, is there's just too many differences of opinion, different ideas of what it should be about, or what it should contain. Nothing wrong with differences of opinion, they add variety after all. But, the problem with a game like UO in principal, is that trying to appease everyone, you end up with something that really doesn't have a proper identity any more.

This is entirely my opinion of course, but I do think that UO has become a bloated and difficult to manage mess of ideas and concepts, none of which really gel particularly well with one another. It's no surprise therefore, that the "community" of players seems so fractured. Yes, we all love or loved UO, but there's so many differences of opinion, that we'll never entirely get what we each want.

On top of that, you have a succession of different and changing development teams, who themselves have had turnover of staff working on the game, each with their ideas and thoughts on what's best for the game.

That to me, is why the game is ultimately doomed to a slow and drawn out failure.

If we as the target audience of players can't agree on anything, but just bicker instead, how the hell are the developers supposed to form a consensus of solid opinion from which to build upon?

If someone were to start a thread which asks readers "What is UO?", I've absolutely no doubt that there would be so many different answers, if you were to present it to someone who's never played, they would probaly lack the desire to try the game, because there's no clear or definitive answer, as well as so many strong differences of opinion.

 

[Archie]

No threads have been closed because of any particular attitude towards classic shards by staff. In fact some staff would dearly love this to come to fruition.
They have been closed because of the constant trolling and personal attacks on other posters.

The exceedingly hostile tone of the opening post on this thread does not bode well for it's longevity. Perhaps you'd like to re-think it a bit?

Agreed.

As someone who only checks this board to get updates on this topic's resolution, I don't think our bitterness as former players is an appropriate launching point for a discussion about UO.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

If there is to be no EA classic shard, it means two things:

1) EA would not agree to committing the funds to it because they do not feel it is a viable option.

This is what I would presume to be a correct presumption if it turns out to be the way things go... however...

2) UO is in the end of its life cycle.

If the development team is spread so thinly as to not be able to produce [...] something like a classic shard, then you can bet that it means that they are down to just a skeleton crew...working on an even leaner budget.

Look... we all know UO's running on a far smaller development team than Cal would like us to be aware of, but that doesn't equate to UO being at the end of its life cycle.

How long has Siege Perilous run as a ruleset, neglected?

Perhaps if they choose not to do a Classic Shard it means that they've chosen not to adopt a third ruleset that would spread the secondary rulesets even more thinly.

Trying to spin the lack of a Classic Shard as somehow equating to the end of UO is a bit silly since the prevailing "classic era" hasn't existed for 12 years. I could only hope any project I worked on had a "death" that lasted for 12 years.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

So if I understand it right?
EA is that incompetent that they lost their own server code?
LOL

It's been pretty widely known for years -- and why there's ever any dispute on the matter is beyond me, but then a lot of things seem to be beyond me in this regard -- that Origin Systems had a fairly lousy system for managing assets, which, of course, would include backups of codebases.

After all, the reason they're unable to recreate the original artwork in a higher resolution is purely and simply that some schmuck at Origin Systems failed to back up the original, high quality, 3D assets that the original artwork was rendered from.

It's a sad testimony... but it's also part of the reason that EA was able to purchase Origin (no, not saying EA didn't always own UO... they did)... the environment at Origin was far too casual. They made great games, but they had no sense of industry standard.

I suspect that you would find that presently -- and since Origin/EA Austin was closed and moved to EA Redwood Shores (and then to Mythic) -- there are plenty of backups of code, code-bases, artwork, and other assets. However, none of that would date back beyond Pub 16.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Trying to spin the lack of a Classic Shard as somehow equating to the end of UO is a bit silly since the prevailing "classic era" hasn't existed for 12 years.

You are welcome to take whatever meaning from any announcement that may come down that you wish...however, there is no way to prove which of us is right beside to just wait and see what happens.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

You are welcome to take whatever meaning from any announcement that may come down that you wish...however, there is no way to prove which of us is right beside to just wait and see what happens.

Well, except of course that there's history in support of my assertion while there's nothing more than guesswork that's based on disappointment to back yours.

I mean, look, people have been asking for a "classic shard" since Renaissance. Siege Perilous was born of that request. However, up until recently, there's never been an answer to that request other than "no." Yes, Cal changed that answer to a "possible maybe," but to take that into a "Well, since they've decided not to provide a Classic Shard, UO must be at the end of its life cycle" is nothing more than gross exaggeration, and a false correlation at best. They haven't provided a classic shard, ever. By your argument, that means UO's been at the end of its life cycle for over a decade now.

The two items simply don't equate to each other. That's sort of like saying "My power went out, so the world is going to end tomorrow."

And, your out, by the way, indicating "wait and see," is curious at best. If they turned off UO in three years, you'd likely say, "See, UO would still be around if they'd put a classic shard in place." Which wouldn't be true, but you'd sure tout it as having been so -- completely ignoring the fact that the classic ruleset hasn't existed for 12 years.

 

[Gunga_Din]

Have you even been to all the US servers? They are all dead but Atlantic. When they held the developers meeting online, only 150 people were watching, only 150 people gave a damn. You got about 50 active people on each shard not spelled A T L A N T I C.

The only reason you see anyone on other servers is because xtraders show up for em events. I still say knock it down to 4 servers and throw in one classic server.

 

[Clx-]

I mean, look, people have been asking for a "classic shard" since Renaissance. Siege Perilous was born of that request.

Err, no it wasn't.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I mean, look, people have been asking for a "classic shard" since Renaissance. Siege Perilous was born of that request.

Siege Perilous went live on July 16 1999.

Renaissance went live on May 4, 2000.

How, pray tell, was Siege born of a request for a Classic Shard after Renaissance??

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

but to take that into a "Well, since they've decided not to provide a Classic Shard, UO must be at the end of its life cycle" is nothing more than gross exaggeration, and a false correlation at best. They haven't provided a classic shard, ever. By your argument, that means UO's been at the end of its life cycle for over a decade now.

The two items simply don't equate to each other. That's sort of like saying "My power went out, so the world is going to end tomorrow."

And, your out, by the way, indicating "wait and see," is curious at best. If they turned off UO in three years, you'd likely say, "See, UO would still be around if they'd put a classic shard in place." Which wouldn't be true, but you'd sure tout it as having been so -- completely ignoring the fact that the classic ruleset hasn't existed for 12 years.

You are not understanding my point...which comes as no surprise whatsoever. Or, perhaps you are understanding it, and you are intentionally attempting to spin it into something it is not.

Let me restate it so that you might understand it better:

For the developers of UO to be so short staffed as not to be able to produce full expansions any longer, and that includes a Classic Shard...is an indication that the game is not only in decline, as it has been for some time...but approaching the end of its life. Certainly, the game will remain playable until they shut down the last shard. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the progression of UO, at least in the way it has been known, seems to be approaching an end. Surely you must realize that this game will not last forever. You have to also be able to recognize the writting on the wall, unless you are just being willfully ignorant. The shards themselves are pretty empty, except for Atlantic. The development of full blown expansions has ceased. The next step will likely be shard contracture.

There is no need to shoot the messenger here. It is not *my* fault that UO has out lived its expected life span. It also isn't because there will or won't be a Classic Shard. It's because the game is going on 14 years old, has the graphics of a 14 year old game, and faces some really stiff competition from the company that owns the game in Star Wars Old Republic. If EA felt that their MMO future was Ultima Online, why would they be dumping so much money into the development and advertisment of Old Republic??

There have been a few Classic Shard fans that have posted that a Classic Shard would "save" UO. I have never been one of those people. I recognize it for exactly what it is...or would be...a way to bring some capital back into the game that will otherwise not be collected. A Classic Shard would not draw enough players to influx UO with enough capital to "catch up" to the other newer games out there...and I never said it would.

So, when I say that if we don't get a Classic Shard, that you should look at it as a sign of things to come...a sign of an end of UO, I do not mean that the lack of a Classic Shard is going to cause that. But I am pretty sure you already realized that before you even bothered to post your response. Nice attempt to spin my statement though, it was a good effort

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Err, no it wasn't.

Well, you can argue with Petra Fyde about that ...
Or "dig through" here: Raph’s Website ...

Just saying, Radian cannot be refuted with a simple "I disagree" ... need to bring some MEAT with your "opinion"

Think of it as your chance to "sit with the wise ones' " and tell the stories of the past ...
truthfully ...
as some of the youngun's have fallen out of practice (if they ever had it) ...

Like I was saying ...

Just saying

 

[Clx-]

Err, no it wasn't.

Well, you can argue with Petra Fyde about that ...
Or "dig through" here: Raph’s Website ...

Just saying, Radian cannot be refuted with a simple "I disagree" ... need to bring some MEAT with your "opinion"

Think of it as your chance to "sit with the wise ones' " and tell the stories of the past ...
truthfully ...
as some of the youngun's have fallen out of practice (if they ever had it) ...

Like I was saying ...

Just saying

Siege Perilous went live on July 16 1999.

Renaissance went live on May 4, 2000.

Anything else?!

 

[Ganondorf00]

On the first Uo server emulators, they didn't steal any code from the official Uo servers. I even read about theories that the classic shard could recover code from them, no it cannot. They simply managed to decode the UO network protocol because there was this offline demo on the cd, that had a mini-server on it. Then they wrote a server that emulated that, and it took off from there.

UO has been lingering for many years, it's not a real news that it's dead, after AoS there has been a steady decline and those of you who read anything of Raph Koster know that mmos don't lose subscribers until they are dead.

The classic shard could revitalize it for some time, if done properly, but even in that case (see the other thread talking about it), it will still be limited to a medium period, 1 or 2 years at max. If EA is really interested in this niche (the sandbox, open pvp mmo players), they should make a whole new MMO after seeing that there is decent interest in a classic shard. Historically we can refer to the huge interest people showed in games like Darkfall and Mortal Online, which then lost interest because they were poorly implemented. This also is a very clear sign that these players will not accept low cost, low quality games, which these indie companies tried (and are still trying, a few more titles come to mind released or in beta) to deliver. I don't know how to properly name it but the sandbox-open-pvp player niche needs a maior software house to invest in the genre. Eve-online is another example that show how huge the interest is, it only partially implements that model but still attracts alot of players (their subscription model is also a part in that of course).

So it's not necessarly a UO classic shard we need, although for nostalgic reasons i would prefer a UO classic shard or a UO based mmo, just a proper sandbox-open-pvp game developed by someone like EA who has the funds to do it properly. On a side note, anyone thinking he can beat WoW by making a wow clone is just stupid. WoW already cloned most features of its predecessors, to beat it you would need a better game, not just another clone (which means while sw:tor will have success, it cannot beat wow for being too similar to it).

More than the end of UO i see the lack of a classic shard (or even should they try to make a cheap and buggy one) as a lack of resurrecting UO which has been dead for years.

 

[I Play UO]

...it's time to move on.

Says the person who quit UO months ago. :loser:

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Says the person who quit UO months ago. :loser:

Who is the :loser: , the person that quits UO and still posts about it, or the person that posts about the person posting about it?

Go stalk someone else.

 

[THP]

its gonna happen....but when it does it really ought to trim shards down....and dont moan about shard history... that went out the window when they made/introduced xshard tokens...along with xshard dupes too...what a mistake that was!!! all of europas em event items and poss every other lesser shard get snapped up by the xshard hoarders....

basically get rid of the golden sow atlantic and let them transfer to the other///lesser /// shards///lol/// problem solved//

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

basically get rid of the golden sow atlantic and let them transfer to the other///lesser /// shards///lol/// problem solved//

What sense would it make to close the most popular shard? With today's internet connections, physical location to the servers is not the issue it was many years ago...so it would make the most sense to close the least populated shards and allow/require those players to transfer over to the busier shards.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

You are not understanding my point...which comes as no surprise whatsoever. Or, perhaps you are understanding it, and you are intentionally attempting to spin it into something it is not.

No, Morgana, the problem isn't that I'm failing to understand you, it is that you are linking two completely unrelated items together, for example:

For the developers of UO to be so short staffed as not to be able to produce full expansions any longer, and that includes a Classic Shard...is an indication that the game is not only in decline, as it has been for some time...but approaching the end of its life.

A Classic Shard has nothing to do with the ability to produce a full expansion, booster, or whatever else.

Let me explain, since the concept has apparently been lost on you for twelve years.

There has never been a classic shard produced, nor ever a promise that one would be produced. In the past twelve years, only for the past year and a halfish or so since Cal made mention of the potential of a classic shard being considered has there ever even been a glimmer of hope. If they don't produce one, it means they've determined it is not financially viable. It wouldn't matter if UO had the same size DevTeam as WoW -- which is another game that people have been clamoring for a classic server on, and which the developers have refused to provide -- if it's not a viable course of action, they simply won't take it.

Certainly, the game will remain playable until they shut down the last shard. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the progression of UO, at least in the way it has been known, seems to be approaching an end.

Oh, dear god... now you're going to redefine what a life cycle is, and what you meant in order to make it vague enough that you can say, "I told you so," at any random point in the future?

Surely you must realize that this game will not last forever. You have to also be able to recognize the writting on the wall, unless you are just being willfully ignorant. The shards themselves are pretty empty, except for Atlantic. The development of full blown expansions has ceased. The next step will likely be shard contracture.

Look... I'm well aware that the game won't go on forever. However, I don't see any writing on the wall that hasn't been there multiple times before. Atlantic is not the only populated shard, but yes, the populations on all the shards are down. No big shock there. The game has a lot of issues that aren't being addressed. Of course, it's had that particular issue for as long as it's been a game.

There is no need to shoot the messenger here. It is not *my* fault that UO has out lived its expected life span. It also isn't because there will or won't be a Classic Shard. It's because the game is going on 14 years old, has the graphics of a 14 year old game, and faces some really stiff competition from the company that owns the game in Star Wars Old Republic. If EA felt that their MMO future was Ultima Online, why would they be dumping so much money into the development and advertisment of Old Republic??

Well, gee, Morgana, at least we continue to agree on certain things... at least in part. First, EA has never understood why UO was a success in the first place, but it has been, to date, their ONLY successful MMO. Dark Age of Camelot doesn't count because they bought it, but even DAoC has been more successful than WAR. Why are they pumping money into SWOR? Because they really, really, REALLY hope to god the game takes off because their history of success vs. failure in the MMO market has been a single game and a single purchased game. They've had no other successes unless you count Pogo, but that's not an MMO.

There have been a few Classic Shard fans that have posted that a Classic Shard would "save" UO. I have never been one of those people. I recognize it for exactly what it is...or would be...a way to bring some capital back into the game that will otherwise not be collected. A Classic Shard would not draw enough players to influx UO with enough capital to "catch up" to the other newer games out there...and I never said it would.

Okay, but as we've discussed ad nauseum, a classic shard wouldn't be just a turn it on and let it go thing. People would want further development on it too, and Siege Perilous already doesn't receive the attention it needs -- and never has, regardless of the UO DevTeam sizes. It might bring in SOME capital, but to believe that it would be enough to justify it is just an exercise in fantasy.

Now, could a different dev team take it, make it F2P, and do stuff with it? Sure, probably. Maybe Draconi's web client would be the way to go for it too -- though I personally see web clients as a weakness to gaming, not a strength, but I digress, that's a fundamental design issue that I take core issues with that's got nothing to do with this at all.

But again, for a classic shard to succeed, it would need much more than an "on" switch, and as you've pointed out, they're not even doing full expansions, and can't focus on more than one thing at a time, so why it would be viable to rip the dev team from a significantly larger player base on the hope and whim that there would be enough of an influx to justify it is far beyond me.

So, when I say that if we don't get a Classic Shard, that you should look at it as a sign of things to come...a sign of an end of UO, I do not mean that the lack of a Classic Shard is going to cause that. But I am pretty sure you already realized that before you even bothered to post your response. Nice attempt to spin my statement though, it was a good effort

Err... But see, Morgana, for you to say PRECISELY that if we don't get a Classic Shard that it's a sign of things to come and then say, "Well, I don't mean that it's specifically because we don't get a Classic Shard" is a spin by yourself on your own statement.

You cannot say "If we don't get a classic shard it means the end of UO's life cycle," and then say, "Well, it's not that failure to get a classic shard means the end of UO's life cycle, clearly that's not what I meant, nice try at spinning it."

Either you meant it or you didn't, but you can't start trying to back out of it by saying, "I said it, but that's not what it meant, and you know it."

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Err, no it wasn't.

Okay, since apparently a period and a comma are now the same thing, let me break down my sentence structure since you seem to have misunderstood in favor of trying to find something to break the credibility of the statement.

Point 1, otherwise known as sentence 1:
I mean, look, people have been asking for a "classic shard" since Renaissance.

This means that people have been asking for a "classic shard" since UO: Renaissance... it doesn't mean it's the only point in time they've been asking for it from, it means it's the most significant, and most often quoted, specifically because of the appearance of Trammel.

What I'm sure some people might argue in a revisionist fashion is that there've been people asking for a "classic shard" since UO:T2A, and a bit before that too since certain rules changes were deemed unfavorable to the playerbase (typically the playerbase that exploited the things that were fixed to a detriment of their own preferred playstyle).

Point 2, otherwise known as sentence 2:
Siege Perilous was born of that request.

Now, clearly UO:R was not the request I was speaking of, which would mean that the request that I was speaking of was the request for a "classic shard." And there is definitely more than a measure of truth to that statement. A particular portion of the playerbase was looking for a more difficult, more challenging version of UO. One that, as I recall, was more based on the Abyss shard, which was the prototype/testing-ground for what became Siege Perilous.

And, while I'm on the subject, I'll be the first to admit that Siege Perilous is not what most people wanted or expected it to be at the time. The development strand that became Siege Perilous was altered significantly prior to launch, and there were a lot of "Huh? This isn't what we were expecting!" when Siege Perilous went live. Still, many players have enjoyed the play experience there specifically because it was a more difficult challenge.

The fact that Siege Perilous does not represent the ideal representation of a "Classic Shard" doesn't mean that it wasn't born of that request. It simply means that the Devs of that era went off on their own tangent, and Siege Perilous became what it did.

It is also fact that Siege Perilous has been horribly under developed for the entirety of its existence, and it is that fact that I commonly use as a substantial comparison to the request for a Classic Shard. There is no logical, reasonable stance to take in support of a Classic Shard that would contain the belief that a Classic Shard would not be as equally ignored as Siege Perilous, which is why I have continually stated it would only make sense if it was handed over to a completely new, separate DevTeam.

So... does that make more sense now?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

That is an awful lot of backpedaling you are doing

You stated pretty clearly that "people have been asking for a Classic Shard since Ren, and that Siege was birthed out of that request".

And in the very post above you accuse *me* of trying to re-define things as I go along???!!

Just say it: You made a mistake. Everyone can read it and see it...no need to try and spin your way out of it now.

Siege was NOT born out of any request for a Classic Shard. Period. Siege was born out of a vision one of the devs had about a more challenging version of UO that would have been more geared towards community and role playing. It had nothing at all to do with "classic" anything.

 

[Clx-]

Okay, since apparently a period and a comma are now the same thing, let me break down my sentence structure since you seem to have misunderstood in favor of trying to find something to break the credibility of the statement.

Not really, what you said just didn't make sense in it's original context.

Now you've explained yourself I don't really have any issue with what you're saying beyond the tenuous link you're proposing between Siege being opened as a 'hardcore' shard in 1999 and the current desire for a classic shard.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Just a quick rebuttal to this one:

I mean, look, people have been asking for a "classic shard" since Renaissance.

...

Siege Perilous was born of that request.

Siege was in existence BEFORE UO:R or Trammel were added to the game. It grew from the original Abyss Test shard to Siege Test (With most of the current Siege rules WITHOUT RoT) to Siege Perilous (With RoT).

At thetime UO:R as annnounced, there was a (legitimate) question on if Siege was going to get the Trammel facet/ruleset (which it did not).

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

A Classic Shard has nothing to do with the ability to produce a full expansion, booster, or whatever else.

Keep telling yourself that.

As a lot of anti-Classic Shard posters have brought up in the past, UO development is done at the cost of specific resources (man hours, cost of server space, bandwidth, etc). If the developers had the resources, do you think they would hesitate to create a Classic Shard? What harm would come of it if it did fail if you assume that resources are not a problem? If something like this is outside of their ability to do...which is what the answer will likely be (I am guessing we are going to get a lot of rah rah rah and blah blah blah about how strong the future is for UO, but at the same time, we are going to get the sugar-coated version of how resources are too scarce to commit to such a large project at this time. Anyone that has ever worked for a company on the decline could probably recite the speech to you before it's even read.) Mythic has pretty much already said that there would be no more full expansions...you take from that what you will.

There has never been a classic shard produced, nor ever a promise that one would be produced.[/b] In the past twelve years, only for the past year and a halfish or so since Cal made mention of the potential of a classic shard being considered has there ever even been a glimmer of hope.

I'd like for you, or anyone else, to point out to me where I have ever claimed otherwise.

if it's not a viable course of action, they simply won't take it.

The problem with that is, what constitutes viable? For me, a Ferrari might be a viable option, for someone else...it isn't. This is what I am telling you. If there are not enough resources (coders, dollars to pay these developers, etc) to make a Classic Shard, or to make full expansions, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that UO is not operating on a Ferrari budge.

Oh, dear god... now you're going to redefine what a life cycle is, and what you meant in order to make it vague enough that you can say, "I told you so," at any random point in the future?

"At the end of its life cycle" =/= "At the end of its life". Perhaps (and oh look...someone *can* admit mistakes) it was not the best wording...perhaps "approaching the end of its life cycle" would have been more fitting? Either way, the point stands.

It might bring in SOME capital, but to believe that it would be enough to justify it is just an exercise in fantasy.

That would depend entirely on how much operating capital the development team has to work with already, wouldn't it?

More to the point, if you look at how many people the recent expansions have brought back, or how many they have attracted in the way of new players, one could definitely argue that the last say...3 expansions have done nothing to bring in any additional revenue. They might have retained some subscriptions, but the net is not all abuzz about ship combat and pirates in UO. You don't see anyone saying "I re-activated my account after 8 years so I could be a gargoyle".

You say it wouldn't be "worth it", but I contend that they can't afford it...those are two very different animals. You mentioned the fact that WoW players have asked for a Classic Shard and haven't gotten it. Have you looked at how many WoW players there are? If WoW loses 1/10 of their subscribers, they would barely even notice...whereas if UO loses 1/10 of their subscribers, you are talking about make or break. If WoW increases it's subscribers by 10%, it doesn't really matter much...they are already making enough money to keep the game going for a long time. Can UO say that? Is UO in a position where it really doesn't need the extra income? No. So if they are not doing a Classic Shard, it is because the development of it is going to cost too much...even if it would boost subscription numbers. Which leads me back to my original point...UO is approaching the end of its life cycle.

so why it would be viable to rip the dev team from a significantly larger player base on the hope and whim that there would be enough of an influx to justify it is far beyond me.

Because what they are currently doing is not bringing in any new subscriptions nor is it bringing back any old ones...at least not in any significant number.

 

[I Play UO]

Who is the :loser: , the person that quits UO and still posts about it, or the person that posts about the person posting about it?

Go stalk someone else.

Still you. :loser:

Do you suffer from paranoia? Why do you assume everyone is stalking you? Are you under the impression that we all have a ten second memory? I do recall you giving everyone this big speech about how no classic shard made you quit and all I could think was thank god I don't have to read anymore classic shard nonsense from you. Silly me.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

all I could think was thank god I don't have to read anymore classic shard nonsense from you. Silly me.

You're @#$# right silly you. You never had to read anything from me. What, is someone sitting behind you there in your mom's basement holding a @#$#ing gun to your head forcing you to read threads you don't won't to read?? Instead of worrying about what I post, why don't you...oh, I don't know...post something of value for a change. You may not agree with what I have to say, but at least I actually say something instead of just trolling.

Have a good night...

 

[NorCal]

It's obvious Radian was wrong about Seige, he should admit it. Of all the "classic" objectors I've found him to be the most reasonable. There are only two arguements against a "classic" shard I've heard that have any merit. Unlike HD that pulls numbers out his arse and thinks his opinions are facts Radian can be objective.

1) It's a business decision for EA.

2) It would take resourses from production shards.

Those are legit concerns. I feel UO is at the end of its life cycle. Anyone that can't see that is in denial. It doesn't mean it's a dead game, only that it can't draw new or returning customers faster then it loses subsciptions. This shouldn't come as a surprise for a 14 year old game, that has done a complete 180 from what it was originally. A classic shard could bring in some much needed subs. It could also be a failure. I don't have a crystal ball, but it doesn't take genius to read between the lines. This game needs subs.

One thing I know for sure, UO can't compete anymore with new games and no amount of advertising will matter if they are going against WoW and try to clone it. WoW does non-con PvP and item based gaming better than anyone. UO will bleed subs until it dies of attrition.

A few times I heard WoW players ask for a classic shard. The differnce is it was a much smaller minority then those who ask for a UO classic shard. WoW has 11 million subs to UO's 100,000. UO has .009% of the subs as WoW. Raidian you really should leave WoW out of your classic UO comparisions.

 

[Babble]

Shouldn't it be 1% of wow accounts?

And I agree that wow does most things better than UO. They even now copy UO's fishing system and enhanced it.

And I still fail to see why freeshards cannot close the gap that ea leaves open.
If you are unhappy how they are done invest $200 and open your own for a year. There are bound to be a few good ones over time

 

[_Zen]

I just don't understand all the beating around the bush. I mean, if they're going to make a video of sorts, I guess that sounds potentially promising.. But why not just say something direct?

And to the guy above me who says he doesn't support the classic shard. I'll just throw this out there and assume you never played UO back in it's glory days?

 

[I Play UO]

You're @#$# right silly you. You never had to read anything from me. What, is someone sitting behind you there in your mom's basement holding a @#$#ing gun to your head forcing you to read threads you don't won't to read??

And I'M the troll.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Of all the "classic" objectors I've found him to be the most reasonable.

I agree to an extent...at least he backs up his arguments rather than merely hurling insults.

I feel UO is at the end of its life cycle. Anyone that can't see that is in denial. It doesn't mean it's a dead game, only that it can't draw new or returning customers faster then it loses subsciptions.

That is precisely what I was trying to say. Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough, but this is exactly my point.