I was there for all of them...Well, that's assuming there actually are people out doing those things.
I was there for all of them...Well, that's assuming there actually are people out doing those things.
People that don't want to lose their houses and history.I really don't understand those that oppose a shard merger. When I think of how UO once was, and how it is now, I can't help but be bummed at how little activity there is nowadays. People is what made UO great. Logging into UO and seeing two afk people at Luna bank is a bummer.
Im stupid rich in game, but I'd give it all for a larger player base. I just don't see the need to sit around and hoard **** anymore when there isn't anyone around to gawk at all my friggin loot!
I'm sure this has been brought up before (maybe even in this thread?) but I'm surprised more people don't rage request the devs to create a shard gate. They can even use it as a gold sink, say a mil per transfer or something. Shard transfer shields suck and seem limiting.
Lastly, I like the authors point about new or returning players come to UO, see dead shards, and quit after a week. That is straight truth, and needs to be addressed. Broadsword may just need to take some sort of risk to increase player base. I just don't see how they can continue without getting more players to come to UO and stay when 80% of the shards are bordering lifeless.
What do I know. Love this game tho.
If you and your friends from some "dead shard" that just got zapped out of existence want to start another player town on a much more crowded existing shard, how do you do that? Chances are good you won't be able to find houses that are close to each other. And if somehow you do pull that off, maybe by paying ridiculous amounts of gold or RL cash to other players/brokers to acquire their houses, your little town is going to be far too new and lack any kind of history to qualify to be recognized as a player-run town.People don't wanna see there player towns vanish.. But why not rebuild.. And make them better then ever!! What great rpg !!
WOW taking all the way back to WBB is great and it UO at its best then we enter the Age of $hit with Luna. please take us all back.I don't believe he stated anywhere about bank sitting. The pics he showed was the player interaction that once was and no longer is. Granted, there really isn't a point to it now due to Gen Chat, but I always had fun looking at peoples suits and seeing people's vendors.
I'm right there with you Ender, I also miss those days.
So lets say they did a shard merg and you come back to UO expecting your shard and all your toons to be there and WOW they are all gone and you expect that person to be happy and say oh UO merged shards so I will just pick a new shard and start over, I don't think so. It would be more like UO just deleted my toons STFU UO I am out of here.Lastly, I like the authors point about new or returning players come to UO, see dead shards, and quit after a week. That is straight truth, and needs to be addressed. Broadsword may just need to take some sort of risk to increase player base. I just don't see how they can continue without getting more players to come to UO and stay when 80% of the shards are bordering lifeless.
What do I know. Love this game tho.
So you can do this now and if what you said was even remotely true then that is what you would have already done. Please don't try and led us down a path that you have no intention of doing.People that don't want to lose their houses and history.
Personally I'd give up the two houses I have right next to each other a few screens south of Fel Yew gate for the opportunity to play with more people, but I know most won't want to.
And you're right. On the off chance a new player does try UO in this day and age if they pick any shard other than Atlantic they probably won't see more than a handful of people.
Yeah except I'm not paying for 14 character transfer tokens. Good try though.So you can do this now and if what you said was even remotely true then that is what you would have already done. Please don't try and led us down a path that you have no intention of doing.
Just my opinion and observation - but the fact that you laid out those specific needs tells me that not only do you know that you should have re-started on a populated server, but you have friends that can xfer you all of the items you need within a 24 hour window without even batting an eye.I just wish they would throw us on the lower pop servers a bone. For instance, I am just returning to the game and having to update a lot of suits. After wrapping my head around what I wanted to do I set out to make my suit. Currently I am trying to craft a bokuto mage weapon. No runic kits on head to get the -15 magery. So I check vendors ( their are two runic tools for sale on all of Baja atm and they are shadow hammers ;x), nothing their so I farm. 9+ hrs later I got one and I consider that lucky. Well now I need to remove that DI mod from the sword, erhm Need a whetstone, Okay how to get those.... ( none for sale again )Need to farm shame champions, need 10 points to summon a champion. takes about an hour for 2 points farming random mobs down there. 1 in 5 drop rate for the essence I need 3 champions.. do math read stratics, realize I am going to have to farm over 350 hours for a 1 time use item because I cant buy anything on my shard, and I feel its unfair I have to pay $40 in server xfer fees just to even get basic items to play the game. Its a wonder people return and quit again in a month, or why people don't want to come fresh to uo and keep playing on any server that isn't ATL. LISTEN DEVS LOW POP SERVER PEOPLE MATTER TOO!
Ohh, look at all the people in Luna, was there an event or something?
That pic takes me back to what Brit Bank was like circa 2000.Ohh, look at all the people in Luna, was there an event or something?
It's no secret that even Atlantic isn't as populated as it was couple of years ago
I enjoy a less populated rural feel shard which is why I am still on Chesapeake and Siege. I checked out Atlantic and didn't like the mob scene there. I shouldn't have to be crowded into a mob scene shard just so the fans of mob scenes are happier.I really don't understand those that oppose a shard merger. When I think of how UO once was, and how it is now, I can't help but be bummed at how little activity there is nowadays. People is what made UO great. Logging into UO and seeing two afk people at Luna bank is a bummer.
Im stupid rich in game, but I'd give it all for a larger player base.
A decrease in your shards population does not force you to do anything. You have options.And yet, I am the one being forced to uproot move from my home shard due to diminished population, or quit. So how is this fair to me? Why does your playstyle get preference?
100% correct.I don't understand why people think it is necessary? Do people think that those who have chosen a quieter shard are somehow unhappy with the game because of that? I think that is flawed logic. The option for consolidation is already there for those that want it. Many have taken advantage of it. I don't understand the logic in thinking that forcing everyone else into that bucket makes the game better. Consolidation is only necessary if you think that the only way to enjoy UO is on a high population shard. I don't think that is true... Quite to the contrary... There are plenty of folks that would close accounts rather than be forced into that playstyle.
wrong. because there arent ANY shards right now with high population. Even atlantic isnt exactly full. many open house plots. luna sometimes only has 3 people at the bank. i wouldnt call that high population at all. Currently there is no option if a player wants a truely active shard. Even Pacific which was "high pop" enough to have 2 EMs recently lost that status. (hopefully im wrong and the 1 EM status is just temporary but i doubt thats the case) Chessy, which was also 2 EM "high pop" status is lower pop now than some shards with 1 EM. Were talking about losses over the last 6 months, not the last 6 years.As it stands currently, if a player prefers a larger shard, there are many options of how to move to one.
-Galen's player
We do see other people in numbers we like on the lesser populated shards, why we play them. We're into more rural lifestyles like a medieval world would be, not a crowded metropolis like some want.... people playing an MMO expect to see other players. when they dont, they stop playing that game.
i can go hunting on Atlantic for 2 hours and not see a single person. if thats the most populated shard, id hate to think of what playing on a "low pop" shard must be like.We do see other people in numbers we like on the lesser populated shards, why we play them. We're into more rural lifestyles like a medieval world would be, not a crowded metropolis like some want.
If we wanted a more crowded world we'd move to Atlantic. Since we haven't, those of us on the less populated shards must be happy where we are at. We sure wouldn't have stayed where we are at if we were not happy. *tosses a clue your way*
wrong. because there arent ANY shards right now with high population. Even atlantic isnt exactly full. many open house plots. luna sometimes only has 3 people at the bank. i wouldnt call that high population at all. Currently there is no option if a player wants a truely active shard. Even Pacific which was "high pop" enough to have 2 EMs recently lost that status. (hopefully im wrong and the 1 EM status is just temporary but i doubt thats the case) Chessy, which was also 2 EM "high pop" status is lower pop now than some shards with 1 EM. Were talking about losses over the last 6 months, not the last 6 years.
Is shard mergers a perfect idea? absolutely not. but popultion has reached such a low point that may not be sustainable anymore. people playing an MMO expect to see other players. when they dont, they stop playing that game.
in my opinion going free to play is a much better option to increase number of players per shard rather than simply reducing the number of shards, but i dont blame players at all for discussing all options.
Mob scene? Give me a break. Rarely, if ever, is there a 'mob scene', even on Atlantic. I guess you haven't been around that shard much lately.I enjoy a less populated rural feel shard which is why I am still on Chesapeake and Siege. I checked out Atlantic and didn't like the mob scene there. I shouldn't have to be crowded into a mob scene shard just so the fans of mob scenes are happier.
*shrugs* Broadsword dumps the shards together to make the mob scene fans happy, I'm no longer happy, and I go checking out other games. UO would no longer be fun to play.
simplest method, free to play, 15 dollars a month (or current sub cost) for a house on the account.So explain how the revenue will be generated to pay the bills. Remember it needs to at least be the equivalent of (Current active accounts # x subscription cost $). In other words 15$ for every account every month....that is a tall task and a totally different revenue model and with such a small staff smh I just don't see it. But, lets hear your ideas?
that would be an excellent, and easy starting point. and absolutely needed if UO is ever to make it to Steam. Id really like to see vets be able to come back to see the game for free too tho, so maybe an unlimited "free trial" as well as unlimited "RTB with no house"Seems much easier to just extend the free trail then.
Right now everybody starts out with the SA expansion and get everything in that expansion plus everything before it.simplest method, free to play, 15 dollars a month (or current sub cost) for a house on the account.
the casual players just playing out of bank box would populate the game, and chances are a good portion of them would like the game enough to want a house and end up paying the 15 bucks per month when initially they wouldnt have given the game a chance because of that fee, but after playing the game for a while decided it was worth it. In general for a successful free to play game, only about 1 out of 100 players is expected to stay. but those 99 players that dont actually commit to the game long term provide population and interaction for the committed ones.
you could make the arguement that we already have a free trial. but that does nothing for returning vets, and is still very offputting to know your going to absolutely have to pay if you want to play the game for more than 2 weeks.
sighthat would be an excellent, and easy starting point. and absolutely needed if UO is ever to make it to Steam. Id really like to see vets be able to come back to see the game for free too tho, so maybe an unlimited "free trial" as well as unlimited "RTB with no house"
The "flaw" in the business model that you propose, and what many folks don't seem to get, is that UO does not have to be an "either/or" model. There are already shards with varying population densities. The customer base of this business has the choice and ability to select a population that suits thier playestyle. When the game does not offer the playstyle you want as a customer, you leave. What you propose with shard mergers is to offer more of something that is already available at the expense of taking away something that is also currently available. McDonalds is not really likely to significantly increase sales of chicken nuggets if the stop selling burgers. Customers who want nuggets can already get them... And those who want burgers will go some place else that sells them.I've known Deraj for a couple of years now, and after reading this thread, I wanted to post in response to the assumption that he's somehow bored or unhappy or out to get his fellow players. He's a member of a fairly active guild, he's well-liked among those he plays with and organizes events people enjoy, and I've never seen him unnecessarily complain about anything. It's fine to disagree with his idea, but it's a silly to make assumptions about his motivations. I think it's fair to say that anyone willing to put the effort and time into formulating a proposal in the manner that he did cares about this game, the same as all of us. He even bothered to explain his background and where he was coming from on this.
As for his proposal, I don't know. My own personal experience in UO makes me think he's on to something. "MY PLAY-STYLE" is that of a role-player and I hate it when there's no one around to role-play with, particularly conflict-based RP. I started in November 1997, and played primarily on Catskills until 2004. I came back in 2011, played Atlantic for a couple years, then ended up back on Catskills because most (though not all) of the the Atlantic role-playing community seemed to vanish on us. I've seen UO at its most popular, and I've seen what it's become, and I find it hard to believe anyone really believes this is the most awesome it could potentially be.
Clearly some form of population consolidation isn't a cure-all, as there would have to be other changes to make it sustainable long-term, but it probably wouldn't be the ultimate doom for UO either. The game has gone through so many changes in the past nearly 18 years and people seem to join, quit, come back, etc. I've never seen the hard date, just my own observations, so I can't really make any claims past that.
I do think it's strange that people are arguing that poorly-populated shards are a positive; I really can't think of any other business model where this is considered a good thing. I also don't think the mighty Atlantic is quite as populated or scary these days as people seem to believe, there are numerous examples throughout this thread of just how it can be just as dead as everywhere else. Though there sure are a lot of houses and things to be bought!
I also get the nostalgia element, I've got plenty of fond memories of UO, my characters, and the people I've met. But I've had to start over a couple of times in UO, and it actually turned out okay. I made some new friends during my first week at my new school and they were kind of just as good as my old friends and I didn't need any major therapy or anything to get through the experience!. In my opinion, nostalgia is bad when it makes people risk averse. They become so caught up in how great things used to be that they're afraid to make any changes because deep down inside they're convinced it can't possibly be that great again. And that makes me kind of sad.
Now there is an intelligent response. What else are you gonna do for an encore.Destroy UO? Lol that's a hell of an exaggeration.
Also gee I wonder how they would get purchasable account upgrades. If only you could just buy them... Wait.
Well, like I said, I don't think that a shard consolidation is a cure-all either, at least not without other changes that are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I'd argue that the whole issue of "shards with varying population densities" (which is a good way of phrasing it) isn't due to design or intent, but the result of player-base attrition that's unfortunately become accepted as status-quo. With respect to your analogy, I think the board of Ronald McDonald Inc. (or whatever it's called in reality) will do whatever it takes to increase profits and line their shareholders* pockets with more and more money. The value of burgers and nuggets are in their branding, not in their nostalgia (except how it relates to their branding). On the other hand, I don't think the developers of UO have the same concerns, and it's more analogous to keeping a gunshot wound from bleeding out further but no ambulance is on the way. But the basic idea of more people playing together increasing activity doesn't seem to be counter-intuitive to me. Most of the returning players I've encountered leave again because there aren't that many people to play with or that much going on for them. Granted, I can only speak for role-playing communities.The "flaw" in the business model that you propose, and what many folks don't seem to get, is that UO does not have to be an "either/or" model. There are already shards with varying population densities. The customer base of this business has the choice and ability to select a population that suits thier playestyle. When the game does not offer the playstyle you want as a customer, you leave. What you propose with shard mergers is to offer more of something that is already available at the expense of taking away something that is also currently available. McDonalds is not really likely to significantly increase sales of chicken nuggets if the stop selling burgers. Customers who want nuggets can already get them... And those who want burgers will go some place else that sells them.
The term is obviously relative. Compared to say... 2000? None. Taken at present day relative to each other... ATL.
agreed. because the experience you say is currently available elsewhere, i just dont agree exists now at all when it did even 3 years ago. even on atlantic that experience does not exist right now. i think this is what the poster is trying to address.The term is obviously relative. Compared to say... 2000? None. Taken at present day relative to each other... ATL.
The value of a burger or a nugget is not in their brand... It is in the customers demand for the product.Well, like I said, I don't think that a shard consolidation is a cure-all either, at least not without other changes that are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I'd argue that the whole issue of "shards with varying population densities" (which is a good way of phrasing it) isn't due to design or intent, but the result of player-base attrition that's unfortunately become accepted as status-quo. With respect to your analogy, I think the board of Ronald McDonald Inc. (or whatever it's called in reality) will do whatever it takes to increase profits and line their shareholders* pockets with more and more money. The value of burgers and nuggets are in their branding, not in their nostalgia (except how it relates to their branding). On the other hand, I don't think the developers of UO have the same concerns, and it's more analogous to keeping a gunshot wound from bleeding out further but no ambulance is on the way. But the basic idea of more people playing together increasing activity doesn't seem to be counter-intuitive to me. Most of the returning players I've encountered leave again because there aren't that many people to play with or that much going on for them. Granted, I can only speak for role-playing communities.
*I want to clarify that in my take on the analogy, McDonalds shareholders are not intended to be equated with UO players. We're the customers.
But how do you justify taking away someone else's choice because you are unhappy with the choice you have? No one forced the current choice you have... It just is what it is. UO had times when it had massive populations, but just having lots of players didn't keep people here. Jamming everyone into a few more crowded shards will not stop the population decline. IMO far more people leave UO for other reasons than population.agreed. because the experience you say is currently available elsewhere, i just dont agree exists now at all when it did even 3 years ago. even on atlantic that experience does not exist right now. i think this is what the poster is trying to address.
I mean, saying going F2P would destroy UO isn't exactly an intelligent thought to begin with.Now there is an intelligent response. What else are you gonna do for an encore.
If the value wasn't in the brand, then why are McDonalds franchisees would spending all that money on franchise fees and other associated costs? You can't just separate customer demand from 50+ years of successful marketing, customer good-will, and increased obesity rates. Regardless, we're kind of arguing apples and oranges here, or burgers and nuggets, because consumable goods (and I use that term loosely when referring to McDonalds) and the online computer game/entertainment service provided by Broadsword probably don't make for the best analogy to begin with. A better comparison would probably be to another MMO. A better question is whether UO is even profitable at this point versus stable. I mean, clearly a bunch of EA employees didn't suddenly form an entirely new company to manage DAOC and UO because those games were making any significant impact on EA's bottom line.The value of a burger or a nugget is not in their brand... It is in the customers demand for the product.
Here is another assumption that I think is flawed: Players on slow shard only solo play and avoid interactions with other players... But if they interacted with more players it would improve thier gaming experience... Thus we must thrust upon them more player interaction so they will like UO more and not leave.
Players on slower shard do interact with people, they just do it in a less saturated environment. Furthermore, they have decided that the level at which they interact is what makes their UO experience better. Shard populations may not have occurred by design... But there is still meaning in how they have evolved. Because players have the choice of where to play, the only logical conclusion is that those on slower shards find more value to their current location than they do in relocating.
I think it is wrong to assume that players on slow shard are there in a bubble... Unaware of what other shards offer in terms of population. I would wager that most of them have at one point experimented with playing other shards. I will use myself as an example (whether I represent the typical small shard player could be up for debate, but I'll say that I do):If the value wasn't in the brand, then why are McDonalds franchisees would spending all that money on franchise fees and other associated costs? You can't just separate customer demand from 50+ years of successful marketing, customer good-will, and increased obesity rates. Regardless, we're kind of arguing apples and oranges here, or burgers and nuggets, because consumable goods (and I use that term loosely when referring to McDonalds) and the online computer game/entertainment service provided by Broadsword probably don't make for the best analogy to begin with. A better comparison would probably be to another MMO. A better question is whether UO is even profitable at this point versus stable. I mean, clearly a bunch of EA employees didn't suddenly form an entirely new company to manage DAOC and UO because those games were making any significant impact on EA's bottom line.
I don't think that players on slow shards necessarily want to solo-play or avoid interactions. I think it's nostalgia that plays the biggest role in this and breeds contentment. However, I don't see how a more active or stable shard would negatively impact their play experience. You said it yourself that population numbers are all relative. Even Atlantic isn't what it was a few years ago population-wise, it just happens to be the best place to buy/sell stuff. For argument's sake, let's say there was some sort of large population consolidation. For argument's sake, let's say that people didn't leave in a huff over it. Do people really think we'd end up with a handful of densely populated shards like the days of yore? I don't. I probably think it wouldn't make a negative impact on people who prefer low populated shards, outside the stuff and nostalgia factors.
The fact that varying shard population densities weren't intended makes it a design flaw in my opinion and should've been addressed years ago. The same way that Trammel was created out of the belief that the original rule-set would scare off potential new players. That was a drastic change (one I personally didn't love) and whether or not it was successful is up for debate, but at least it demonstrated an attempt to take a risk, which I can respect. I mean, I can't imagine there's this large segment of the UO players who initially came to the game in the past 5 years and were like "Awesome, I can play for hours without seeing anyone" and chose to settle on a low-activity shard.
Meaning we'd have to move to one of those busiest shards making the game more fun for the 'mob scene fans' and souring the fun of the game for ourselves. The large percentage of players happily spread across the rest of the shards can just be ignored huh?Everyone pay's for accounts. But Broadsword needs to look into maximizing the most they can from limited resources. So they need to start focusing their EM events on the busiest shards. Everyone can participate if they want...but these events will only take place on the top four or five shards (population wise). Then more frequent events and on going story lines. The game isn't increasing in membership...so they need to focus on keeping the most players happy and entertained and slowly stop the bleeding if they can.
Late 2012 or around there. We probably have a very different opinion of what constitutes a mob scene.Mob scene? Give me a break. Rarely, if ever, is there a 'mob scene', even on Atlantic. I guess you haven't been around that shard much lately.
And it's very selfish to insist we all clump together to make 'you' happy so you can play YOUR SACRED STYLE and have mobs to interact with, forget what anyone else might enjoy.General comment:
Quite frankly, this whole 'I want to be left alone to play MY SACRED STYLE and not have to interact with others' is not only selfish, but is the biggest factor contributing to lower subscriptions and the slow bleed out of this game. I see people in this thread citing it again and again. It's really a little bit pathetic.