West Coast Merger Consideration

[Tina Small]

I suspect that a shard merger would probably also mean all guild and faction affiliations would be dropped. Guilds would have to be started anew and alliances reformed.

Would the people who still play really want to go through all that work, on top of having to find new housing?

And what about all the inactive players that would just fall into oblivion? It would be truly sad to see their names completely wiped out of the game. A minor detail to some, but to some of us who are perhaps more sentimental than others, maybe too big of a blow to take along with all the other adjustments and changes involved in a shard merger.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

I'm just wondering what your idea of "protecting the game" looks like...

it would be shards full of people, instead a bunch of small shards where it's difficult to find anyone. Trying to stick to the original plan for the shards and the rulesets they have had as the game has morphed...a multi player game where players can actually interact with others...go figure...la

 

[Loqucious]

We don't need a complicated merger in which people will lose their housing. All UO has to do is create gates that allow players to jump to different shards, with the restriction that the player may only take what he is wearing and what is in his backpack.

Yes, UO will lose money in transfer tokens, but the player satisfaction will grow and most people will end up going to specific, populated shards.

 

[Uvtha]

Uh yeah. So? What's your point? Last time I checked, those were all pixels and all required pixels to achieve.

Which still doesn't change the fact that your idea is terrible and would do nothing but make people quit the game in large numbers.

Youre right it would make people quit, but I think his point is that the game should be about fun, not investments. Of course it's not to most people.

 

[Kyrie_Elaison]

Someone told me that Pacific was the most populated server on the west coast. I made a new character and even though new haven was a ghost town and the luna action seemed light I started a new necro mage, got him up to GM, placed a Fel house 2 weeks later.... only to have the same problem as Napa Valley. Can't find anyone around, can't find a guild... nothing to do but solo....

What time did you try to play on Pacific? I have always played Pacific and it is usually pretty well populated.

I would like to see them combine either Baja or Napa to the Pacific shard, but I know that will never happen.

 

[Setnaffa]

Let me throw another little fly in your oinment:

I have 7 characters on my account on Napa and another 7 on Pacific. How do you propose handling accounts that have more than 7 characters per account on the merged servers?

This is never going to happen guys. If they do shut down a shard, they'd most likely give every character a transfer token on the closing shard, give them 2 weeks to transfer off the shard, and then be done with it. The characters on the closed shard would be doomed to be wanderers on the remaining shards; hoping to find a house, and trying to forget all the stuff they had to leave behind on their old home shard.

 

[Rubican]

I really can't fathom people against merging shards. I play Pacific which is generally considered the highest population on the west coast. The shard is DEAD. The vast majority of all towns (save luna) - EMPTY Imagine a massively multplayer game where the towns only inhabitants are NPC's stumbling around in circles. Thats what we have! {insert pancake slap here}.

Dungeons - except for a few hotspots (like 3 or 4) EMPTY Last night, at primetime: Swoops - empty, Mirasma - empty, ran through almost all of Shame - empty, Covetous - empty. I did run into 1 person at the Blighted Grove but every single other area I was at - EMPTY

I'm not even going to bring up the overland area, we all know you can run through the land with out running into a single player.

I know some of the reasons are game functions - BUT COME ON!

Remember players at the Smith shop repairing armour?
Remember running into players in a dungeon? Remember "Wanna take turns" was a common phrase?

I could go on, and on, and on and on.....

I have a Tram Keep that I dearly love, I have a Fel Tower that pre-dates my marriage and my two kids, I'd give them up in a heartbeat to have some sort of player interaction in what was at one time a multiplayer game.

The player base is simply insufficent to populate all the shards. It is cold hard truth.

 

[Setnaffa]

I have a Tram Keep that I dearly love, I have a Fel Tower that pre-dates my marriage and my two kids, I'd give them up in a heartbeat to have some sort of player interaction in what was at one time a multiplayer game.

The player base is simply insufficent to populate all the shards. It is cold hard truth.

Get yourself a Transfer token and move to Atlantic. There's lots of fun there and with a broadband connection, you will see very little lag (like a few milliseconds).

 

[RD Gumbie]

Here's the only thing that matters, untill UO says they have a problem with too many servers/shards and not enough people then nothing will change. As you can see, some people enjoy staying where they are, or going to a low populated shard. And what the players that want to be on a shard like atlantic can do is try to generate buzz around another shard and unite there.


If UO says that they need to do a merge, one idea would be to give each char on that shard a gump (NOT A TRANSFER TOKEN) to let them go where they want and the shards that are left would open up a new tram/Fel landmass in which you could have somekind of lottery system or a deed when you drop your house on falling shard to take and place at the new shard (only tickets would be usable in this area for a certain amount of time.

 

[Rubican]

Get yourself a Transfer token and move to Atlantic. There's lots of fun there and with a broadband connection, you will see very little lag (like a few milliseconds).

I was just thinking of starting a character there to see how the lag is (I'm in California). I ping 30 to Pacific and thats hard to give up.

 

[RoycroftLS]

Get yourself a Transfer token and move to Atlantic. There's lots of fun there and with a broadband connection, you will see very little lag (like a few milliseconds).

So for those paying customers who weren't clairvoyant in their shard choice years ago, the solution to get their characters to a still-populated shard is paying $20 per toon while abandoning their house and some belongings? Doesn't seem too fair to them.

 

[ColterDC]

I have 7 characters on my account on Napa and another 7 on Pacific. How do you propose handling accounts that have more than 7 characters per account on the merged servers?

Same sort of situation for me.

So they would have to let people go beyond the 7 char per shard limit.

Their only other option would be to delete chars which would certainly get people to quit (myself included).

 

[AesSedai]

Get yourself a Transfer token and move to Atlantic. There's lots of fun there and with a broadband connection, you will see very little lag (like a few milliseconds).

So for those paying customers who weren't clairvoyant in their shard choice years ago, the solution to get their characters to a still-populated shard is paying $20 per toon while abandoning their house and some belongings? Doesn't seem too fair to them.

- It is absolutely fair to all of us: We all had the same shard choices & the locatoins of the servers have not changed since they were turned on.

And back to the thoughts of merging shards rather than solving our own issues, on our own...
My answer is: thirtyteen slip-slop.
Next thought?

 

[maujai]

If they could figure out a way to deal with the housing issue, I would certainly go for a merger. Tired of playing alone.

i agree!! I would give up my house just to have a bigger population on my server. I usually log in for a few minutes just to check the hot spots or what used to be hot spots and they are always dead. I would love to actually see Brit Bank or the dungeons full like they used to be.

 

[Basara]

Most merger ideas are silly, but I have one I could go for...

It would be, of course, only for shards in the same server farm.

1. Scan all the related shards' Ilshenars for event content specific to that shard. Duplicate them all into a larger version of Ilshenar, and add a couple more Champ spawns.
2. Do the same for the Trammel & Felucca versions of the Lost Lands, turning each into their own facet.
3. Replace the existing versions of those areas with the new ones, shared by all the shards on that server farm. When one enters those areas, guild tags acquire an identifier, to keep same-named guilds from accidentally mixing.
4. Ilshenar remains Trammel ruleset, but reds will be able to come and go from it as they please (and reds will be able to fight reds there, without blues interfering). The Champion spawns there will potentially drop scrolls, but the 115s & 120s would be using a point system like that of Doom Artifacts/ToT/10th anniversary dungeon drops. Since they will be shared by 4 or more shards, and there would be a lot less scrolls dropped, it won't hurt Fel scroll production. Ilshenar Spawns would also give a chance for a skull that could only be used for a Harrower as described in #6 below, but the chance of a skull dropping would be 5%, not 100% as in Fel.
5. The combined Fel Lost Lands would become the cross-shard battleground, and remain the primary source of Powerscrolls.
6. The Trammel Lost Lands shared facet will finally see the Trammel Khaldun opened, and populated. The only champ spawn that will spawn in the Trammel Lost Lands would be the Harrower - and only if summoned via an Ilshenar spawn, using the rare skulls from it.
7. Players, while sharing these three lands, can only return to their shards on leaving. However, use of the shared Ilshenar and Trammel LL facets would allow regional transactions without the need for shard transfers. There could also be a special inn programmed to allow an unguilded person to log out in one of the shared facets, then after the server maintenance down time, log back in with the character transferred to a different shard (so long as they had room for that shard). This might still require buying a transfer token of some sort - or even vast amounts of gold (say, 20 million) as a gold sink (less functional but safer than a transfer token, and less likely for exploitation - at worst, you log back into the same delucia or papua inn, without transferring -plus repeatable without having to worry about the purchasing limits at the game codes site)

 

[AesSedai]

maujai - try moving to another shard?
Oh you want your characters & stuff too? Pay for transfers. Stop playing for a month or two - boom you just payed for a transfer by the money you saved because you don't like the population of your shard and don't want to build anew on another.

People: There are solutions currently available.
What happens when UO picks up steam again, with new intriguing immersive content and all the bored WOW's & WHO's want something else to play?

 

[Olahorand]

I run currently 5 active accounts, holding houses on different shards.
Merging shards causing house loss would mean, these accounts are not longer necessary.
*Salute*
Olahorand

 

[Locker]

I sincerely appreciate all of the ideas, thoughts and fairly non-hostile discussion regarding this subject. It seems, as with most things, no one is really wrong or right we just have several different perspectives.

Thank you, once again, to the community for all of the active debate and consideration.

Peace,

Locker

P.S. I thought the idea(s) regarding gates between shards IN game was very, very cool. Don't know if it's technically possible but it sure sounded like a fun idea. I know a few folks on Napa who would love a cross-shard raid to Baja... proving once and for all that grapes > sand.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

What happens when UO picks up steam again...

ROFL, as if...la

 

[Connor_Graham]

P.S. I thought the idea(s) regarding gates between shards IN game was very, very cool. Don't know if it's technically possible but it sure sounded like a fun idea. I know a few folks on Napa who would love a cross-shard raid to Baja... proving once and for all that grapes > sand.

Napa may have grapes, but Baja has Agave Cactus, not to mention pretty decent surf.

Mas Tequila!

Cabo Wabo FTW!

 

[Crystal Canyon]

What happens when UO picks up steam again...

ROFL, as if...la

I had to laugh a bit about that one too, BUT....you cant help but dream it will happen.

I went to Origin shard as soon as it opened. It was great back then...alot of players. And yes, you did have to wait your turn to do Mel or Dread, but at the same time, there was all these people! YOu could run in the bank and yell " Who wants to help do a Dread?" and there were always enough folks there that would go.

In the last year or so, Origin has become a ghost town. It would be great to be able to merge a few shards and have enough players around to enjoy the game with.

When the population of a shard drops so drastically, what you get is people forming "groups' instead of Guilds. Even the guilds that show 100s of members on our shard, only really have about 5 -10 active players.

I know alot of folks say "just go to another shard," but when you have several accounts full of good characters, you have to realize what it would cost you to move them all.

Housing would be a challenge, as alot of players wouldnt want to leave what they have. I dont even know how they could do it to make it fair. I think this is the biggest problem here as far as merging.

But, yes, I agree, merging would be a great idea.

 

[Yalp]

I sincerely appreciate all of the ideas, thoughts and fairly non-hostile discussion regarding this subject. It seems, as with most things, no one is really wrong or right we just have several different perspectives.

Thank you, once again, to the community for all of the active debate and consideration.

Peace,

Locker

P.S. I thought the idea(s) regarding gates between shards IN game was very, very cool. Don't know if it's technically possible but it sure sounded like a fun idea. I know a few folks on Napa who would love a cross-shard raid to Baja... proving once and for all that grapes > sand.

Ha... Here's a cold Cervasa from the land of sun sand and surf! Dos Equies if you prefer!

 

[gunneroforgin]

I just moved to Origin, I will not make the move again. so if there is a shard merger and we were to lose Origin(no one has said this was happening or is going to happen.) I am gone. I am done with UO. I like Origin and most of the people I have met there. I am here for the duration.

 

[Lord Drakelord]

I picked Sonoma exactly because it wasn't the over populated shard when I first started playing (8+ years ago). Any time I have the itch to be around a lot of people I simply log in my Atlantic character.

Exactly what I do.

Ya I do the same, Siege got a elder archer.

 

[MalagAste]

As a Role-player I think this is a TERRIBLE idea... First off many shards have Unique locations...... Blessed homes.... Blessed area's..... What would become of those??? I know I would be VERY irritated to lose the history of my shard...

Yes there is a decline in players. Yes there is a decline in many things all over shards not just in small shards but all over. I think this is more noticeable on shards with fewer players yes.... But I play on GL and we have a larger population.. but I still have found a serious decline in players and activity.

Even in the Role-play community there has been a steady decline in players... but I do NOT ever want to leave Great Lakes... I always hope that things will pick up again.... and I'm always hopeful that EA and DEV team will bring back things like Seers and EM's and Councilors..... but that's a dream.... I also hope that they will improve the game dramatically giving us a 3d client that works and looks good... that a majority of folk can actually load and play.... and it's true to UO.... I also dream about a focus returning to Role-play.... And I dream of there being events that shape the land... But those are pretty big dreams... I always hope the next expansion will bring in tons of new players too.

I think a large part of the problems with every shard right now is the lack of community, the poor customer service, the state of the economy... Numerous bugs, poor graphics, lack of advertising, folk who think that graphics are more important than content... Pretty pictures do not make a game fun... they just make it pleasant to look at... After awhile that grows old. And another major problem with UO is folk who have this tainted vision of what it was and keep trying to get it back... UO will never be like it was back in the Pre-Tram days... And most of us are glad for that. But I think the direction it's going isn't good either.... UO is becoming a totally item dependent game and it shouldn't be...... Even though I myself am guilty of wanting things.... (Still dreams of spiderwebs and spider statues)....

Anyway we can always hope that things will improve... though if your bored that bad with nothing to do .....come to GL join the RP community here and I'll give you plenty to do. I never have a shortage of things to do.... only a shortage of people to do them with.

 

[Basara]

Mal:

What of my suggestion that would only merge the non-housing parts, and leave the housing areas intact, with all the interaction between shards being in Ilshenar & T2A?

that way, we preserve most of the history (and moving the rest to cohabit the merged non-housing areas), not to mention our ability to have 5-7 characters per shard.

 

[Dermott of LS]

...

Many people would get mad because they'd lose their houses,

People who state the above I nominate for the first houses eliminated.

It's easy to say "close and consolidate" if your shard is not the one being closed.

We don't need consolidation, we need a game (yes, including a client) that will bring people to the game.

 

[GarthGrey]

EA could probably get plenty of volunteers to give up there housing on one shard to move to another, if some sort of "housing compensation" were offered. There are lots of players that have already said they would take a smaller sized house if the lockdowns were adequate.

 

[Masuri]

I'd give up my house for a shard with actual people on it. But I can also understand why other people wouldn't.

What I won't give up is my characters, and I refuse to pay the exorbitant fees necessary to move all of my characters to a populated shard, because the fact that some shards are dead and some aren't, is EA's fault, not mine - they failed to manage their server populations, not me.

If EA isn't going to merge the shards, or open new shards and make sure there's enough greenspace for every single player to get a house, then they need to allow everyone to transfer his/her characters freely. A free one-use token for every character, to migrate to any server of his choosing. That will allow the people who want life to transfer to it, and those who want a quiet empty shard to play single-player UO in peace.

 

[Basara]

It is theoretically possible that the Devs cold expand the existing maps to 4x their current size (twice as big in both directions) as a "merged shard", move all the historical/event establishments to it, then do a housing scan, recording every house, its contents and its location.

As each area would be 4 times the area it was before, people would then log in to the new shard, and go to the area where their house stood on the old one, and would then re-place it, in that larger area, restricted in such a way as they couldn't block others doing the same from the other areas. After 3 months, any areas not reclaimed would become free for expansion, and any "held" homes not yet placed could be put any place they could fit. Of course, it would also mean people could have as many as 28 characters on that one merged shard.

It would take a lot of work, but it could be done.

 

[Lyconis]

I think a merger would be drastic. I don't think I have enough time to reorganize my houses on another shard. It took me nearly a year and a half to clear out two keeps worth of crap to consolidate my houses. I wish spring cleaning was out before I did that.

I think a better idea, at least to start, would be some clarification and rethought with the shard login screen. You can click %FULL but who knows what that button really does. Perhaps it may be listed in a manual, but which manual is up to date. I have a renaissance manual....

You can get a rough idea from the guilds listing, on the website under my uo, to see how many active "toons" are in the game. Perhaps some type of similar logic of showing active accounts can be added near the shard and the %FULL could be used to show how active a shard is at that time. It doesn't even have to be real time, nightly, weekly or even monthly could be enough. This could be a useful tool something new players and players like yourself can use to determine what shard they would like to live on.

I think its a better solution that hitting the delete button on shards, I doubt many people would quit the game because they could see how populated a shard was.

 

[a slave girl]

No mergers please.

ADVERTISE UO with an ML box on the shelf play UO for 1 month $15 NEW ACCOUNTS ONLY get it out by Xmas.

These accounts need to be flagged and the account owners informed that if they place a house and don't pay for their account at renewal then the house falls subject to normal idoc rules if at all possible. That way new players can try ALL content before they decide to stay or go.

And then everybody in UO could be super nice and helpful to NEW players during the Xmas holidays.

Merging shards without advertising and pulling in new players just means UO dies sooner rather than later.

And oh yes, as compensation from EA games if they do merge the shards, I'll take $100 cash for my castle and $30 cash for each of my keeps on Pac.

If EA ever hands me any cash for playing UO then I know the end is near and I surely wouldn't bother renewing any of my accounts.

 

[Rainforest]

No mergers please.

ADVERTISE UO with an ML box on the shelf play UO for 1 month $15 NEW ACCOUNTS ONLY get it out by Xmas.

And then everybody in UO could be super nice and helpful to NEW players during the Xmas holidays.

Merging shards without advertising and pulling in new players just means UO dies sooner rather than later.

Agreed 100%. Merging is the easy way out (short cut) for us players to get a better uo atmosphere but it hurt uo in the long run. EA would treat uo like dirt after the merger. Why bother to invest in uo further if it needs a merger? This is ok if u already think uo is a dead horse but i dont. Instead of wasting time asking for a merger, i would rather ask for better advertisement and marketing for SA. Uo will never go back to its peak but it could certainly do much better than now.

 

[Richtor Darkbane]

I used to play The Sims Online, and they tried this, it basically killed the game more than it already was. It might work in UO but only if:

*Smaller shards are merged into larger shards.
*Smaller shards turn into "Facets" of that shard.
*These new facets crumble away in places where no housing is allowed to be placed or housing doesn't exist, so all citys, dungeons, ilsh, etc are only on the original facets.
*Current houses are grandfathered in, but no new houses may be placed, if all houses fall or are demolished on that facet it dies and is removed.

But even at this... alot of players would be extremely mad, and could you imagine 3 or 4 lunas! Luna-Atlantic Facet, Luna-Legends Facet, etc.

bit of a nightmare.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

It is theoretically possible that the Devs cold expand the existing maps to 4x their current size (twice as big in both directions) as a "merged shard", move all the historical/event establishments to it, then do a housing scan, recording every house, its contents and its location.

As each area would be 4 times the area it was before, people would then log in to the new shard, and go to the area where their house stood on the old one, and would then re-place it, in that larger area, restricted in such a way as they couldn't block others doing the same from the other areas. After 3 months, any areas not reclaimed would become free for expansion, and any "held" homes not yet placed could be put any place they could fit. Of course, it would also mean people could have as many as 28 characters on that one merged shard.

It would take a lot of work, but it could be done.

To fix the housing issue once and for all (and it will have a down side) all they need to do is implement what they should have done long ago when housing was a REAL problem. This was suggested in the spring of 99 on CoB and may have been (memory is leaky) what lead to the Stratics request for Custom House Designs. I do not know if that isn still part of Stratics or got lost.

Create a Housing server.

House can be created on that server per account and for sake of argument have all the same rules as now.

Each house is instanced and can be of any size, number of floors etc. *Read as each house is ISOLATED*

Add the floor, tiles and add ons to allow one to build a Cave Home.

You get an object that will a) teleport you to your home on the equivalent of the steps b) Open a gate to your home on the equivalent of the steps.

Downside:

no neighborhoods (as in public, unless a work around fix of allowing a rune to be marked to the Steps to your house and your house has a defined public area (part of the steps construct))

no taverns (as in public, unless a work around fix of allowing a rune to be marked to the Steps to your house and your house has a defined public area (part of the steps construct))

no IDOC

Upside:

houses no longer place a load on the game server.
housing is no longer an issue, in terms of numbers of houses.
items in a house no longer place a load on the game server.
all of the game server land is available for PvP/PvM.
activities going on in the housing server do not place a load on the game server.

If your not on the House list some home, you can NOT go further than the equivalent of the steps.

Vendors can be placed on the equivalent of the steps.

The equivalent of the steps can be of any size and shape.

While I am against merges based on experience at EQ, this facilitates the reorganization of shards as the game servers no longer deal with housing.

Increased options and flexibility on houses. Not the least of which is the ability to directly allow Cave Dwellings by game design. A person wants to set up a 100x100 city for their guild, no problem as it is in the end only bits on a disk drive.

Remove all houses from cities (Luna etc) and convert the space to Vendor Stalls.

 

[Zyon Rockler]

Shard merger could be done 2 ways.

1. Eliminating shards is the most drastic. What I think is, all they would need to do is first pick the shard that everyone would be comming to, create a beautiful landscape on that shard where all the houses could go.

Then, make it so you can place the moving crate and then set it to change shard. You pick up the moving crate and transfer to that shard, maybe via evacuation gate.

Then, you find a place, you double click the crate and it replaces your whole house and refills your bank. Now your house, all your lockdowns and all your items are on the new shard. That wasn't so difficult.

As far as tags for guilds, just add something to signify what shard they are from and factions they would just fall into their own faction.

2. Without eliminating shards, you just take all the facets that do not have housing and remove them, except for 2 or 3 main shards. Now whenever anyone comes in to say Ilshnar, there is only 1 Ilshnar.

Again his tags for his guild get something added to them. This allows people to come together and for the shards to become more active and keeps these players off the Trammel and Felucca sets, to stop over crowding, etc...

 

[Yalp]

the heavy emphasis on this thread is dealing with the housing issues of consolidating shards.. however there are other just as serious problems this would cause that no one is discussing. If you think by finding a solution to the housing question that everyone could buy into would mean shard consolidation could happen tomorrow... then we're all shortsighted.

besides... I am still not convinced the reasons for a consolidation are valid enough to warrant such a move.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

After playing EvE on and off for the last couple of years, I'd love to see all of the shard (with like rulesets) to be merged. Having a single server, is great...la

 

[ShadowJack]

I think it would be a good idea.


just about everyone would freak out about the houses, so I can't see them doing it.


They'd rather keep the little bit of money rolling in from the people who have accounts but don't actually Play than to make the game better.


But yeah, I think that would help a lot, but once again, I can hear the screaming already.

 

[Calla Lily]

I think one answer to the low population problem has a very easy fix: Get boxed sets of UO back on the store shelves where new players can find them! And how about a little advertising?

 

[It Lives]

After Playing mine sweeper on and off for several years, I would love my options to play less frequented shards to remain the same.

buy a transfer token.

 

[Kith Kanan]

Well, of course there will be a handful of selfish players that wouldn't like this idea instead of looking out for the game, they'd rather hold onto their precious pixels...la

ROFL you should talk..... la my heini

 

[drinkbeerallday]

They should at least have "Shard Switch" option where people can swap all of their characters from one shard to another one for a lesser fee than buying all of the transfer codes.

I let my account go inactive because I was bored with the game. If I return to UO again I will probably be transferring to Atlantic.

Eventually UO will no longer be profitable and they will shut down all of the shards, all at once. If that happens hopefully Stratics will allow discussion of free shards and 3rd party programs otherwise this forum will go inactive.

 

[Kith Kanan]

My interests are for the shard, and keeping it's integrity. Not becoming another production shard. Is that selfish? Not at all, but nice try...la

ROFL yeah right .... and I got a pig that can fly....

 

[Yalp]

After playing EvE on and off for the last couple of years, I'd love to see all of the shard (with like rulesets) to be merged. Having a single server, is great...la

I see *from your idea* we'd be making an exemption for Siege.. which is a shard with low population. How nice for you. How do I get to be important enough to have my own pet shard spared?

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

After playing EvE on and off for the last couple of years, I'd love to see all of the shard (with like rulesets) to be merged. Having a single server, is great...la

I see *from your idea* we'd be making an exemption for Siege.. which is a shard with low population. How nice for you. How do I get to be important enough to have my own pet shard spared?

Become me?...la

 

[phantus]

Nah. I like my low pop server. Low population servers have the best community.


You want more people to fight then ask for that. There are zounds of good ideas that could make that happen. An arena instance. A zone that connects all server with some resource to control. A reason to fight would do wonders for this game.

The real issue with UO is the fact it doesn't keep people's interest. No expansions are not a workable MMO tactic. UO's population gets lower and lower and lower. People are moving on to games with real customer service and real content additions. No game can survive on major updates every 3 years.

 

[Beefybone]

These "I love empty shards!" people are a joke. Just goes to show that SOMEONE will argue against any idea. You could come on and post "Everytime I boot up UO my computer gives me an electric shock and it sucks!" and someone would post to tell you how they love it.

 

[Salty Pete]

These "I love empty shards!" people are a joke. Just goes to show that SOMEONE will argue against any idea. You could come on and post "Everytime I boot up UO my computer gives me an electric shock and it sucks!" and someone would post to tell you how they love it.

Yeah giving you an electric shock and not wanting to play on Atlantic are the same thing.

Some people, myself included just don't need to play on a server with wall to wall people. Is that really so hard to believe?

Benefits to a small server:

No waiting at popular spawn sites
Lots of places to place a good sized house
Easier to avoid problem players
Community is tighter and easier to get involved with

 

[Surgeries]

My interests are for the shard, and keeping it's integrity. Not becoming another production shard. Is that selfish? Not at all, but nice try...la

I guess that depends who you ask, then, doesn't it, Rico?

My, and others interests are for the homes they worked so hard for...for the shards that some of their very first characters grew up on...so they don't get lost.

To you it doesn't make any difference.

To us it does.

You're selfish...and we're selfish.

Some of us are willing to admit it, while you pretend to be so very altruistic in your motives.

Nice try...you are still horribly transparent, and afraid to admit the truth.

It's OK though...we can all see it.

It's OK.



We still don't want to lose our Houses, or Shards, any more than you want to lose yours...but nice...no...sorry...that would be inaccurate...

but you gave it a very feeble try.