Shard populations

[Hawkke]

Anyone know the actual player count for the low, med, and high populations. What i mean as how many players are actually on if population is medium or high.
Also how is the population on the siege shard. Was thinkin about starting a character there but dont want to waste my time if there is never anyone on the server. Thanks

 

[PwnySlaystation]

Anyone know the actual player count for the low, med, and high populations. What i mean as how many players are actually on if population is medium or high.
Also how is the population on the siege shard. Was thinkin about starting a character there but dont want to waste my time if there is never anyone on the server. Thanks

With regards to Siege. Have you looked at the Siege board? It's got a post that shows all what has gone on through the course of a month i believe. Theres lots of people on SIege, sometimes it appears quieter than it is, you just have to play the right time of day[im GMT and i have to stay up late to find people] and ask in gen chat.

 

[Slayvite]

Low = 5 to 10
Med = 10 to 20
High = 20 to 50.

 

[Swordsman]

You may compare the people gathering at Bri bank 10 years ago and now at Malas bank, you would get a rough idea. I am only able to have group hunt one or two times a month.

I think UO needs to change style, make all contents to allow single player to complete the game alone. it is bad experience to make an appointment with people just for playing a game, and some players may not show up on time.

The multi player experience should be designed at some other areas, such as wedding...

 

[Razz]

I think UO needs to change style, make all contents to allow single player to complete the game alone

You can solo 99% with the right build.

 

[Archnight]

Anyone know the actual player count for the low, med, and high populations. What i mean as how many players are actually on if population is medium or high.
Also how is the population on the siege shard. Was thinkin about starting a character there but dont want to waste my time if there is never anyone on the server. Thanks

The three most populated shards would be Altantic, Great Lakes and Europa. Siege even though the population is low, their forum on stratics is one of the busiest (join a guild if you plan on going here, they are VERY helpful). As for the low-med-high i'm not sure how it's measured or how many people need to be on for each threashold, most shards are always on low other than the three I mentioned

 

[Prawn]

The deadest North American Shards

1) Sonoma (very low)
2) Baja/Napa Valley (tied for 2nd lowest population) (low)
3) Origin/Lake Austin (tied for 3rd) (low)

The most active North American Shards

1) Atlantic (High)
2) Great Lakes (Medium)
3) Lake Superior (Medium)
4) Ches/Catskills/Legends (tied for 4th) (Medium/Low)
5) Pacific (Medium/Low)

 

[Lord Frodo]

UO has a high enough population/accounts on all the servers to keep UO alive and that is all that matters

 

[Prawn]

The maintenance costs/upkeep/servers is extremely low compared to most subscription based games. So yes, im sure it will be alive for many many years to come.

 

[Gorath]

The deadest North American Shards

1) Sonoma (very low)
2) Baja/Napa Valley (tied for 2nd lowest population) (low)
3) Origin/Lake Austin (tied for 3rd) (low)

The most active North American Shards

1) Atlantic (High)
2) Great Lakes (Medium)
3) Lake Superior (Medium)
4) Ches/Catskills/Legends (tied for 4th) (Medium/Low)
5) Pacific (Medium/Low)

Chessy is considered medium now? Christ. It seems dead.

 

[Keith of Sonoma]

The deadest North American Shards

1) Sonoma (very low)
2) Baja/Napa Valley (tied for 2nd lowest population) (low)
3) Origin/Lake Austin (tied for 3rd) (low)

The most active North American Shards

1) Atlantic (High)
2) Great Lakes (Medium)
3) Lake Superior (Medium)
4) Ches/Catskills/Legends (tied for 4th) (Medium/Low)
5) Pacific (Medium/Low)

I pretty much agree with your "ranks". However, I feel the need to add, "On Sonoma we may be a small population, but we are FEISTY!" HEHE

 

[Pawain]

LS has 12 players. 23 on weekends. Hope that helps.

 

[Tanivar]

How many houses on these shards? Each is a paid account. There's only a few dozen player houses on most prodo shards these days?

 

[Zalan]

Legends has 30 to 35 players on during EM Events. Even then 20 to 25 of the players from Atlantic wanting the EMs monthly drop.

 

[Pawain]

How many houses on these shards? Each is a paid account. There's only a few dozen player houses on most prodo shards these days?

So everybody should have a castle then.

 

[Fridgster]

Napa is a lot less dead than most believe.

 

[Thrakkar]

Anyone know the actual player count for the low, med, and high populations.

Atlantic = almost acceptable, any other shard = too low.

It is a shame that a shard merge is never going to happen.
People clinging to something called shard history, which is already tainted by all those shard transfers. Instead they should embrace the benefits of a merge and try to leave their mark on those new shards, because this is history in the making.

 

[MalagAste]

I always thought Balhae was the most dead of all shards.

 

[SugarMMM]

So everybody should have a castle then.

YES please!

 

[Tanivar]

Legends has 30 to 35 players on during EM Events. Even then 20 to 25 of the players from Atlantic wanting the EMs monthly drop.

Think I've gone to one EM event. Got turned off to them because their slow and everything is buried under flapping GD and Gargoyle wings, you can't see squat.

Go by number of houses to guess number of players on a shard, say two houses each average?

EA is making enough per year to pay overhead costs and salaries for six devs. They have more than a scarce few players on each shard to cover those expenses.

 

[Lady Storm]

just because you do not see people at banks....... Napa we had a talk about that... most times we are off doing our own thing.
Same with origin and a good handful of shards
oh and EA has never divulged the population of its games.

 

[Prawn]

I always thought Balhae was the most dead of all shards.

It absolutely is; but notice my post states NORTH AMERICAN

 

[The Craftsman]

I think UO needs to change style, make all contents to allow single player to complete the game alone.

Possibly the most ridiculous thing ive ever seen posted on any mmorpg gaming forum ever.

No online mmorpg should ever consider this as a sane route to go down.

 

[The Craftsman]

So everybody should have a castle then.

YES please!

Still wouldnt be enough for some self righteous castle owners with an inbred sense of entitlement. They'd still be whining on that even though they had max storage and max plot area that it should be customisable.

 

[Keith of Sonoma]

Atlantic = almost acceptable, any other shard = too low.

It is a shame that a shard merge is never going to happen.
People clinging to something called shard history, which is already tainted by all those shard transfers. Instead they should embrace the benefits of a merge and try to leave their mark on those new shards, because this is history in the making.

I think the biggest problem with shard merging would be with determining who get the housing. Unless y'all all want to come to Sonoma of course.

 

[MalagAste]

Atlantic = almost acceptable, any other shard = too low.

It is a shame that a shard merge is never going to happen.
People clinging to something called shard history, which is already tainted by all those shard transfers. Instead they should embrace the benefits of a merge and try to leave their mark on those new shards, because this is history in the making.

Shard Merging will NEVER happen... First off I like many others have at least 5 to 7 character on some of my accounts on EVERY shard... So what do you do allow folk to have 21+ characters on a shard???? or do you make them delete some???

Secondly you may not give a hoot about shard history... but I do... I could give a rats about any other shard I remain on mine because I do care about it's history... I know why it has various things that it has that other shards don't have... and I like that. I don't really care about the stuff on other shards.

If they wanted to do something it should be more of just connecting shards together in groups... and making many of the dungeons singular... However what do you do then about all the people who own houses in the Abyss??? Just take that away???

What about special castles on various shards??? Do you just take that away from them???

There are many reasons why shard mergers will never happen... but those are the biggest. That and we don't have anyone on the DEV team capable of programming something like that. You all waited how long for an update to window size and look how many bugs that came with...

I have 2 castles, 1 keep and over half a dozen other max storage houses many of which are 18x18... merge shards and force me to "downsize" and where would I keep all my crap? Force me to get rid of it and all and well ... I'd be easier just to close the accounts and forget it.

 

[Pawain]

A common dungeon would be cool. Have it on its own server and you can transfer a character back and forth. Pet revamp is next.

 

[Thrakkar]

Shard Merging will NEVER happen... First off I like many others have at least 5 to 7 character on some of my accounts on EVERY shard... So what do you do allow folk to have 21+ characters on a shard???? or do you make them delete some???

Secondly you may not give a hoot about shard history... but I do... I could give a rats about any other shard I remain on mine because I do care about it's history... I know why it has various things that it has that other shards don't have... and I like that. I don't really care about the stuff on other shards.

If they wanted to do something it should be more of just connecting shards together in groups... and making many of the dungeons singular... However what do you do then about all the people who own houses in the Abyss??? Just take that away???

What about special castles on various shards??? Do you just take that away from them???

There are many reasons why shard mergers will never happen... but those are the biggest. That and we don't have anyone on the DEV team capable of programming something like that. You all waited how long for an update to window size and look how many bugs that came with...

I have 2 castles, 1 keep and over half a dozen other max storage houses many of which are 18x18... merge shards and force me to "downsize" and where would I keep all my crap? Force me to get rid of it and all and well ... I'd be easier just to close the accounts and forget it.

Super easy solution:

Create a new empty shards. I.e. 1 for west coast, 1 for east coast, 1 for Europe, etc... or maybe even one for multiple regions...
Turn off house placement on the legacy shards. Already placed houses are subject to remain.
Add an additional house pool, so you can have 1 on siege, 1 on legacy prod, 1 on new prod.
Turn off PvP, any spawn (mobs & resources) and all NPCs except bankers on all legacy shards. So no buying, no selling, no farming, no killing, no looting, no mining, etc, you get it. Which basically forces you to come to the new shard.
Allow free character transfer between any legacy shard in that area and the new shard. (Shard transfer tokens will still be useful between regions/new shards. Shard shields will remain functional. (Can create new shard shields as well plus a vendor which allows trading a legacy shield for a new shield).

So everyone can keep all his/her characters (you can only have 5-7 of those on the new shard, but you can shuffle them around as you want, as long as you have free slots (and with the new shard come 5-7 new slots))
And everyone can keep all his/her houses and can still use them. Regardless if in the abyss or anywhere else.
And you'll still have your history...

 

[Riply]

Trying to figure shard popluations is almost impossible, yes an educated guess this shard has more players then this shard etc.
Using how many houses there are on a shard might help a little but alot of players have multiple accounts because they want multiple houses etc.
Going to see how busy it is at the Luna bank might help a little, but the game is so spread out now compared to 1997/2000.
Also when comparing how many players still play this game, keep in mind we have what 20 shards compared to when it first came out which was what 3?
Combining shards to make the shards look busier is not a good idea either, players ilke there home shards. If not you can move using a transfer token(s).

A long time ago when you logged into UO the log in screen would show each shard and how active they were at that time. Not with exact populations but by like
5 differant levels of activity. They stopped doing that, my guess is there afraid that most shards would show low activity.

Some players like low populated shards, the game with all its faults is still a great game.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Super easy solution:

Create a new empty shards. I.e. 1 for west coast, 1 for east coast, 1 for Europe, etc... or maybe even one for multiple regions...
Turn off house placement on the legacy shards. Already placed houses are subject to remain.
Add an additional house pool, so you can have 1 on siege, 1 on legacy prod, 1 on new prod.
Turn off PvP, any spawn (mobs & resources) and all NPCs except bankers on all legacy shards. So no buying, no selling, no farming, no killing, no looting, no mining, etc, you get it. Which basically forces you to come to the new shard.
Allow free character transfer between any legacy shard in that area and the new shard. (Shard transfer tokens will still be useful between regions/new shards. Shard shields will remain functional. (Can create new shard shields as well plus a vendor which allows trading a legacy shield for a new shield).

So everyone can keep all his/her characters (you can only have 5-7 of those on the new shard, but you can shuffle them around as you want, as long as you have free slots (and with the new shard come 5-7 new slots))
And everyone can keep all his/her houses and can still use them. Regardless if in the abyss or anywhere else.
And you'll still have your history...

Stupidest idea I have ever heard.

 

[Parnoc]

I always thought Balhae was the most dead of all shards.

Or Oceania

 

[Tanivar]

Some players like low populated shards, the game with all its faults is still a great game.

So true on both points.

I started characters on other shards, Atlantic was way to crowded, UO is set in a medieval era, it should have a low population rural feel to it and did on Chessie and does on Siege. Dump me into a zoo like Atlantic and my accounts would close the same day, why would I keep playing a game suddenly turned to rancid dragon droppings?

 

[transcendent]

The dead shards discourage potential players from joining. They might make a trial account and log onto a random shard. Then they don't see any other players and give up.

 

[Tanivar]

The dead shards discourage potential players from joining. They might make a trial account and log onto a random shard. Then they don't see any other players and give up.

Since the game is still here and if they know each account can have one house, the fact they see houses all over the place tells them there are a lot of players on the shard they're trying out. It's just a seriously big game world after 20 years and people are out there.

 

[transcendent]

I think it would be better if somehow Atlantic was made the default shard that shows up first on the list. Most people don't want to play a mmorpg alone by themselves with zero interactions with others.

 

[transcendent]

A common dungeon would be cool. Have it on its own server and you can transfer a character back and forth. Pet revamp is next.

A shared dungeon is definitely a good idea. Then ppl don't have to give up their houses, but they would still be able to interact with more players.

I hope Devs can add a new shared land/dungeon in the future.

 

[SugarMMM]

I mentioned the shared dungeon thing a long while ago.
One of the biggest hurdles of it is that you cannot allow items to be dropped and picked up or handed/traded to anyone while in the shared dungeon.

There is another online game that has shared dungeons and they work awesome.

 

[Thrakkar]

Since the game is still here and if they know each account can have one house, the fact they see houses all over the place tells them there are a lot of players on the shard they're trying out. It's just a seriously big game world after 20 years and people are out there.

Yeah, right, because the first thing a new player is doing, is to run around on all housing areas and check the house count... not...
Plus there are enough players, who just pay every 3 months to keep their houses or have multiple accounts and can only play with one at a time (or multibox).

I started characters on other shards, Atlantic was way to crowded, UO is set in a medieval era, it should have a low population rural feel to it and did on Chessie and does on Siege. Dump me into a zoo like Atlantic and my accounts would close the same day, why would I keep playing a game suddenly turned to rancid dragon droppings?

In terms of players UO is just a shadow of its former self. We just got more shards and more facets and less players. Spreading them even thinner. 16 years ago you were always running into other people, regradless where you have been going. Now almost all places are deserted.
The game that more or less kicked off the MMORPG genre has been degraded to a single player experience. The sampire template, which is able to solo almost everything supports that. Plus all the people who demand content to be soloable. Plus people like you who actually want a thin population and thus a thin playberbase.
This is sad. Really sad.

 

[THP]

Right lets take a quiet shards -with low population....

Its pretty easy to guess active players ..if your shard is quiet it will have empty castle spots...there are roughly max 120 castle spaces in tram and the same in felucca...and obviousy we have the luna hub!!! although some quiet shards have empty luna spots as well!!! ....the rest of the whole world is basically green acres so bear in mind most active players will have at least 2 castles or a luna and a castle spot.. and also bear in mind roughly 1/3 are bugged unused houses....lets do the maths !!!!

so if all the castle spots are placed!!!!! thats 240 / 2 each for each player = 120 .....then 120 x 2/3 [1/3 are unused dead bugged for years] = 80 paying players max!!! on low population/quiet shards...

Thankyou for reading....THP LandStalker General

 

[Coco_Zamis_DF]

How so you like your shard? Rare, medium or well done.
Well WE could try to make a Chat which called people Count or ping. At a specific day and time everybody joins it and shout "i am here". Use a Journal Log file to Count thoose Echos.

 

[Pawain]

Right lets take a quiet shards -with low population....

Its pretty easy to guess active players ..if your shard is quiet it will have empty castle spots...there are roughly max 120 castle spaces in tram and the same in felucca...and obviousy we have the luna hub!!! although some quiet shards have empty luna spots as well!!! ....the rest of the whole world is basically green acres so bear in mind most active players will have at least 2 castles or a luna and a castle spot.. and also bear in mind roughly 1/3 are bugged unused houses....lets do the maths !!!!

so if all the castle spots are placed!!!!! thats 240 / 2 each for each player = 120 .....then 120 x 2/3 [1/3 are unused dead bugged for years] = 80 paying players max!!! on low population/quiet shards...

Thankyou for reading....THP LandStalker General

I don't have a castle on LS. Can you whip on by and find me a spot? Shouldn't take more than 5min since the shard is so dead. Thanks

 

[Herp!]

Legends is slowly getting quieter and quieter, but we still have at least 5 active players that I know of including myself and my friend. Though I do not think that the problem with population on most shards lies in lack of players, I think we are all just active when we can be... and some of us work 60-90 hours a week and have families or other things to tend to in our spare time before games, so active time might be like 30 minutes a day if anything and that time is spent doing 1 or 2 things quietly with the occasional general chat conversation. I was away for about 5-6 years, came back to a much quieter shard, but a lot of familiar names from long ago still play pretty regularly and I've still never met a community nicer than the community in UO. Almost anyone is willing to help you if you just ask & that says more to me about the character of the people playing UO than anything.

I'd argue that at peak though, Legends probably has about 10-15 players online on the weekends doing things and that is still considered low pop. I believe that Medium probably kicks in at about 40 players online considering when EM events are happening on Legends we have appr 40-50 people there (from assorted shards) & are considered a medium shard for that hour or 2. High is most likely 100+, and obviously then low would be anything 0-39.

All just a guess, but that is my experience with counting people that I have actually seen doing things or talking in gen chat... I have never seen ANY shard at high population since I came back in 2009 and don't really expect to.

In regards to those people who seem to think UO should just be a single player game now.... GO ASK PEOPLE TO DO THINGS WITH YOU! That's how you make friends, just like real life. I met a guy in 1999 when I was 12 yrs old playing UO, I still talk to him to this day even though he doesn't play anymore. There are people online always, all you have to do is ask. There's a lot of greed in this world & people tend not to want to share the loot, but I've encountered some pretty awesome folks in this game, all it takes is asking and the right person might be online and have the time and proper template to help. Hell, I did Harrower the other day with someone I've never even seen before just because I didn't feel like soloing it and my friend wasn't able to be online.

 

[Old Vet Back Again]

I am 100% for shard consolidation. I have probably more than most people to play this game and I would gladly give it all up to have a game with what appears to be an active player base.

 

[Herp!]

I am 100% for shard consolidation. I have probably more than most people to play this game and I would gladly give it all up to have a game with what appears to be an active player base.

Sadly, 90% of the populous wouldn't want to lose their hard earned pixels for more activity. I personally only play Legends daily & rarely play Siege or Drach, so I do not stand to lose anything but my Luna home and my Minoc castle.... and you know, all those like 8000 items since my banks on 2 accounts cannot hold that many items. I'd gladly part with a fair amount of it because I can get it all back in time, but some of the artifacts and rares I'd lose would actually cause me to have a heart attack. Some items I have simply have sentimental value... I was given gifts long ago from a friend who died in a car wreck and his mom had to log in and tell the guild, gifts from a dead ex-girlfriend I met in UO, etc. Maybe that is where the problem lies with many folks not wanting to have the shard merges, to some of us, that sentimental value is worth the quiet shard & banks simply aren't large enough. Sure, it may be junk to other folks, but to us... that's history, our past, and our memories we stand to lose.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Sadly, 90% of the populous wouldn't want to lose their hard earned pixels for more activity.

Or maybe we PREFER a more grown up crowd, you know something you do not see/hear/read on Atl. Just because you want to deal with all the children on Atl doesn't mean we want to or should be forced to deal with them.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I am 100% for shard consolidation. I have probably more than most people to play this game and I would gladly give it all up to have a game with what appears to be an active player base.

Well good for you, now please stay on Atl and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Herp!]

Or maybe we PREFER a more grown up crowd, you know something you do not see/hear/read on Atl. Just because you want to deal with all the children on Atl doesn't mean we want to or should be forced to deal with them.

I wouldn't touch Atl with a 100 metre pole. Thanks for just making the assumption that anyone wants to go to that hell hole though. Good thing assumptions just make an ass out of you in this case and not me. I never said in that post at all that I am FOR consolidation... as a matter of fact I VERY adamantly stated things that obviously show that I am against consolidation. Yes, I said I will gladly part with a small amount of my stuff because I can get it all back in time... but certain things cannot be replaced any more. I have an active player base on the shard I play on, I talk to people and do things with them.... I don't care how immature or mature a person is, I'm here to play a game and have fun. If their idea of fun is to be childish, let them have fun. Just because you're stuck on being an adult doesn't mean we all are. I work 70+ hours a week and rarely get to play anymore, so when I do play, yeah... I may get a bit kiddish and have some fun. Some of us still remember what it's like to have fun and joke around, I'm sorry you don't.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I wouldn't touch Atl with a 100 metre pole. Thanks for just making the assumption that anyone wants to go to that hell hole though. Good thing assumptions just make an ass out of you in this case and not me. I never said in that post at all that I am FOR consolidation... as a matter of fact I VERY adamantly stated things that obviously show that I am against consolidation. Yes, I said I will gladly part with a small amount of my stuff because I can get it all back in time... but certain things cannot be replaced any more. I have an active player base on the shard I play on, I talk to people and do things with them.... I don't care how immature or mature a person is, I'm here to play a game and have fun. If their idea of fun is to be childish, let them have fun. Just because you're stuck on being an adult doesn't mean we all are. I work 70+ hours a week and rarely get to play anymore, so when I do play, yeah... I may get a bit kiddish and have some fun. Some of us still remember what it's like to have fun and joke around, I'm sorry you don't.

If you consolidate the shards then you will end up with a shard just like Atl and if you think otherwise then take off the rose colored glasses.

 

[Herp!]

If you consolidate the shards then you will end up with a shard just like Atl and if you think otherwise then take off the rose colored glasses.

Oh I know, I wasn't saying that it wouldn't end up that way... I guess I just have more faith in humanity than most. I've met pretty much nothing but nice people in UO, but maybe that's because I limit who I consort with to the people that are 30+ and actually act their age(30 year olds can be kids too and still act like adults) and I just ignore that butt heads

 

[THP]

weve talked about this many times.... shards cannot be consolidated because that would stop the scripters milking the empty shards dry !!!! aka like minax ...or the harrower un-opposed...etc ...etc forget it... all u will get is posts about history being ruined when they mean they cant leave afk's milking drops with no-one else around..

have a great UO day....