A new pvp server or saving Siege Perilous

[GNecromancer]

Ok, after my previous post, looking at all the different feedback, it seems that what's killing Siege is not that it's more geared toward pvp, it's that the ruleset is extremely unattractive to casual gamers, no encouragement to join the shard, and bugs that go unfixed.

So should we have a new pvp server that is like the production shards that simply applies the felucca ruleset to every land "and doesn't have trammel" And possibly change the item insurance system to give it limitations and restrictions? And perhaps introduce a pvp rewards system?

Or should we petition EA to fix and repair Siege and finally bring it up to date?

As it stands now, there is really no in between. We have many production shards with the trammwl ruleset, where all areas are off limits to pvp except felucca, and item insurance makes pvp purely item based and favour power-gaming guilds who run the doom gauntlet day in and day out, with no rewards at all for pvp.

Then we have Siege, hardcore pvp rules, one character, an extremely slow and tedious method of skill gaining that discourages most people, bugs, very little publicity and the ability to ensure only one item and an atmosphere that is essentially "anti-new blood" I remeber creating my first character on siege, it was a long and hard road with very few rewards.

So should we ask for a new pvp shard and help EA to create it, or should we offer suggestions on how to evolve Siege. PvP is an important aspect of UO, PvP were the roots of UO and is a hell of a lot better in this game then it is in the mainstream MMO's like WoW and EQ2 that focus a lot heavily on PvE over PvP ... But even in those games, pvp servers done properly are more popular then the non pvp servers. And in a game like UO were PvP is higher quality and more enoyable, we deserve to have a legitment pvp server. Not dozens of trammel servers and one advanced shard riddled with bugs with a very unfriendlly, unattractive and unfair ruleset that doesn't appeal to most players.

The problem with Siege is that the ruleset has not changed at all since it's creation but the game has evolved and changed a lot since then and Siege has fallen behind and has suffered because EA has shown very little interest and the overall UO community shuns Siege for these reasons.

The consensus of ideas I got that would help revive Siege and make it more attractive and make it more interesting to play there seemed to be this...

1.) Revise, alter or fix the ROT skill gain system. This is extremely tedious and discourages any new players or characters from playing, no one wants to play 4-5 months just building one character before they're even ready to attempt pvp combat, no one wants to be gank cannon fodder while spending an eternity just to develop a character who will not be fun or enjoyableable for the better part of this journey.

2.) The one character per account is a ridiculous rule that needs to be removed. All it does is give benefits to more wealthy or die-hard gamers who have multiple UO accounts and is completely biased to casual gamers who can only afford or only wanta one account. This is not fair at all and there is no reason you should only be allowed one character per account on Siege. People exploit this rule by having 2-3 accounts.

3.) Add a "pvp or advanced shard" flag beside Siege on the server list and also have some kind of tutorial for the shard. Allow "young" players to select this server from the beginning.

4.) Possibly allow players to bless or insure maybe 2-3 or items rather then one, because UO has become incredibly item based with a lot of rare and unique items that is a huge departure from old UO. currently we can bless one item, but it would be nice to insure maybe 2 or 3 at most. Otherwise once you have that one artifact or one good item your looking for, there is really no reason to continue treasure hunting consider you can only have one character at the moment.

5.) Offer pvp rewards or some kind of reward system for playing Siege or possibly be able to move your vet rewards from one shard to another shard so players don't feel they are trapped on one shard and that moving will mean they must leave behind all their veteran reward.

What do you all think? I am just trying to find out if we need a new pvp server or if Siege can be fixed and salvaged to become more appealing to current day UO. Siege really started to lose it's appeal after Age of Shadows because the ruleset wasn't as compatible with the rest of the game and this has only continued to get worse. Now no one sees much point or reason or has much desire to move or play there. But this doesn't have to be the case.

EA has ignored Siege and the idea of a new pvp server for a very long time and I think it's high time we deserve attention to be paid to one or the other idea. It's long overdue.

Thank you.

 

[Guest]

First of all I would like to Thank You for what you´re trying to do for Siege!

But for now I think we should just wait for what possible RoT changes will be done in the *crosses fingers* near future. Let´s see what changes will be done and if they make more people give Siege a try.

And I for one would vote NO for multiple blessed items.

That´s all for now. Thanks!

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>


1.) Revise, alter or fix the ROT skill gain system. This is extremely tedious and discourages any new players or characters from playing, no one wants to play 4-5 months just building one character before they're even ready to attempt pvp combat, no one wants to be gank cannon fodder while spending an eternity just to develop a character who will not be fun or enjoyableable for the better part of this journey.

2.) The one character per account is a ridiculous rule that needs to be removed. All it does is give benefits to more wealthy or die-hard gamers who have multiple UO accounts and is completely biased to casual gamers who can only afford or only wanta one account. This is not fair at all and there is no reason you should only be allowed one character per account on Siege. People exploit this rule by having 2-3 accounts.

3.) Add a "pvp or advanced shard" flag beside Siege on the server list and also have some kind of tutorial for the shard. Allow "young" players to select this server from the beginning.

4.) Possibly allow players to bless or insure maybe 2-3 or items rather then one, because UO has become incredibly item based with a lot of rare and unique items that is a huge departure from old UO. currently we can bless one item, but it would be nice to insure maybe 2 or 3 at most. Otherwise once you have that one artifact or one good item your looking for, there is really no reason to continue treasure hunting consider you can only have one character at the moment.

5.) Offer pvp rewards or some kind of reward system for playing Siege or possibly be able to move your vet rewards from one shard to another shard so players don't feel they are trapped on one shard and that moving will mean they must leave behind all their veteran reward.

What do you all think? I am just trying to find out if we need a new pvp server or if Siege can be fixed and salvaged to become more appealing to current day UO. Siege really started to lose it's appeal after Age of Shadows because the ruleset wasn't as compatible with the rest of the game and this has only continued to get worse. Now no one sees much point or reason or has much desire to move or play there. But this doesn't have to be the case.

EA has ignored Siege and the idea of a new pvp server for a very long time and I think it's high time we deserve attention to be paid to one or the other idea. It's long overdue.
Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Yes Yes and YES!!!!! Although with the guild NEW and several good guilds to join after your first month you can still have fun and be quite usefull.

2. NO! This is what makes siege more of a community is that we rely on each other. It also provides employment for our non PvP people ( crafters / t-hunters / fishemen / cooks Ect.)

3.YES!

4. No flipping way. We fought long and hard to get rid of the bunny ears and hotpants; also some people still think even one siege bless is to many. I personally think the single siege bless that is infinatly reuseable is just right.

5. Please see #4 this is a great reward for being sucessfull at PvP you can take someones pretty things when you kill them. I would love to see less guard zones and a return of the bounty system. Also I am looking forward to the faction fixes. Yes to the being able to bring your vet rewards but you can also find a broker to x shard them.

 

[imported_Castor]

oh to be young and naive again....

 

[GNecromancer]

But as for point 2, it's just not fair. die-hard gamers or more wealthy players can easily have more then one charcter witgh multiple accounts... I've known people on Siege with upwards of 4 or 5 accounts because they can afford it. It is not fair to casual gamers and people who can't afford that, it gives them a huge disadvantage against those other gamers. Yes in theory, one character is neat, but not when there are ways around it and exploit that involves giving EA $10 extra month per Siege character slot. It's not fair nor a good idea. People who pay EA more money should not have an advantage in game such as multiple characters on a shard that should have only had one.

As for point 4. I could go either way on this, but I just found it a good way to ecnourage players to keep treasure hunting. why treasure hunt if you have all your power scrolls, unlimited goals and found that one artifact? Just an idea, 2 blessed items or something would make for a good combination.

As for my last point, yes pvp is reward in itself, but a pvp reward system would help to encourage the non die-hard, hardcore pvpers to invest more time in it, some kind of rewards... Or atleast being able to transfer vet rewards to a different server so we don't have people who flat out refuse to move to another shard because they don't want to lose all their Vet rewards... Limiting vet rewards to one shard is a stupid idea. if you have to move for any reason, there goes years of your vet status.

 

[imported_Bluebottle]

<blockquote><hr>

But as for point 2, it's just not fair. die-hard gamers or more wealthy players can easily have more then one charcter witgh multiple accounts... I've known people on Siege with upwards of 4 or 5 accounts because they can afford it. It is not fair to casual gamers and people who can't afford that, it gives them a huge disadvantage against those other gamers. Yes in theory, one character is neat, but not when there are ways around it and exploit that involves giving EA $10 extra month per Siege character slot. It's not fair nor a good idea. People who pay EA more money should not have an advantage in game such as multiple characters on a shard that should have only had one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alas - financial disparity is a fact of life - get used to it! Even with just one character, being able to spend $$s on a boatload of soulstones allows them to mix and match skills as needed. On the other end of the scale, properly managed, Siege provides an outlet for all manner of new characters to prosper but only as long as you plan for and stick to a single class/style. I do have two accounts (one with a T-Hunter/Thief, the other a Tamer) - neither of them actively PvP just PVE and RP - any PvP is purely coincidental and I do res folk now n then

 

[Guest]

With all due respect, I have, and only will have, 1 account. And on Siege, I have
1 character with upwards of 10+ "professions". (I'm kind if fickle)

1 word - SoulStones. And you don't have to be rich. All but 1 of these stones
were either received from Expansion Bonuses or in game gold purchases.

 

[Guest]

I wont get into the specifics and the various arguments. I only have one thing to say about this...

Save Siege Perilous. We already have enough PvP servers, and they are called "Felucca".

 

[GNecromancer]

Well I guess we all have some varying opinion, but we all agree Siege needs to be fixed. If EA isn't willing to do it they should just give us the power

 

[Rykus]

<blockquote><hr>

1. Yes Yes and YES!!!!! Although with the guild NEW and several good guilds to join after your first month you can still have fun and be quite usefull.

2. NO! This is what makes siege more of a community is that we rely on each other. It also provides employment for our non PvP people ( crafters / t-hunters / fishemen / cooks Ect.)

3.YES!

4. No flipping way. We fought long and hard to get rid of the bunny ears and hotpants; also some people still think even one siege bless is to many. I personally think the single siege bless that is infinatly reuseable is just right.

5. Please see #4 this is a great reward for being sucessfull at PvP you can take someones pretty things when you kill them. I would love to see less guard zones and a return of the bounty system. Also I am looking forward to the faction fixes. Yes to the being able to bring your vet rewards but you can also find a broker to x shard them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT - Because I agree 100%, and also because that avatar rules!

 

[Alvinho]

Sound like a classic shard in sheeps clothing mess

 

[Masumatek]

<blockquote><hr>

it's that the ruleset is extremely unattractive to casual gamers

[/ QUOTE ]

ROT is extremely unattractive to casual gamers. It can take them 6 months+ to train a character. Even if you log in every single day and get your max gains a day, it will still take 3-4.5 months to fully train a character, and casual players certainly aren't logging in every day and getting their max gains per day.

But besides ROT, how is Siege's ruleset extremely unattractive to casual gamers? I’m not sure what you're saying there. If you're saying the item-based crap is bad for casual gamers I agree there, but that's on every shard. Though having a single Siege Blessed Item doesn’t help things.


<blockquote><hr>

So should we have a new pvp server that is like the production shards that simply applies the felucca ruleset to every land "and doesn't have trammel" And possibly change the item insurance system to give it limitations and restrictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what Siege is....unfortunately. So no, we should not.


<blockquote><hr>

Or should we petition EA to fix and repair Siege and finally bring it up to date?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should and have been, but they don't devote nearly enough attention to fix Siege. And not only does Siege need fixing, future problems must be prevented, which aren't because what trammel gets, we get, for the most part.


<blockquote><hr>

2.) The one character per account is a ridiculous rule that needs to be removed. All it does is give benefits to more wealthy or die-hard gamers who have multiple UO accounts and is completely biased to casual gamers who can only afford or only wanta one account. This is not fair at all and there is no reason you should only be allowed one character per account on Siege. People exploit this rule by having 2-3 accounts."

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The one character per account is an essential aspect of Siege. It makes the game harder. It increases player interaction, strengthens our community. It is much much much tougher to be self-reliant on Siege than on shards with multiple characters per account…you have to rely on the community, rely on your fellow player. This is a good thing. Crafters can survive on Siege yes, because there's less item insurance, but also due in a large part to there being only one character on Siege per account. One character per account also makes you more accountable for your actions.

Now, yes, soulstones/soulstone frags have hurt Siege, allowing people to have the equivalent of multiple characters per account. But it would only get worse if more characters are allowed. Yes, name change tokens have allowed some people to escape the consequences of their actions (if there are even any consequences anymore ), but again, adding another character or more to everyone’s account isn’t going to help things.

Yes, thoughtless additions to Siege have weakened the reasons to have only one character per account on Siege. However, the answer is not to just say: “ok screw it, let’s add another character.” The answer is to do something about the problems. Soulstones/frags must be nerfed. Name change tokens must cease to work on Siege.

Even if these problems were not dealt with though, allowing more characters per account will further hurt the player interaction, community, crafters, and the “toughness” of Siege.

As for “people can still have 2-3 accounts,” yes, they can, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Or maybe the devs can do something, but I don’t know what it is they would do. This unfortunately is something we must live with. And if those people who already have 2-3 (or more) accounts decided to keep those accounts even when more characters could be added to them, does that make things “fair” as you seem to think such a change would? Nope. Sure, now the people with only one account can have more characters, but so can the people with more than one account, and so they maintain their advantage over those one account. Yes, plenty of people will close their extra accounts if given more characters, but plenty won’t. And no doubt a significant percentage of Siege income to EA is through extra accounts. So, EA would get less money from Siege since many closed their accounts, and therefore they have less reason to keep Siege open…all in the name of “fairness” that will never be a reality since plenty of people will choose to keep their extra accounts.

If it’s “fairness” you’re after, you might suggest to the devs to think of something that will prevent more than one account per person, if that is even possible. But adding additional characters per account will not accomplish what you think it will.

All that said, I will admit that allowing two or more characters per account on Siege will likely increase its population, though how much and at what costs I do not know. However, changing other aspects of Siege, like ROT, will also increase our population, probably much more so than adding additional characters per account, and at no costs. Other ways to increase our population must be explored before we consider additional characters per account. Such a change should be a last option.


<blockquote><hr>

4.) Possibly allow players to bless or insure maybe 2-3 or items rather then one, because UO has become incredibly item based with a lot of rare and unique items that is a huge departure from old UO. currently we can bless one item, but it would be nice to insure maybe 2 or 3 at most. Otherwise once you have that one artifact or one good item your looking for, there is really no reason to continue treasure hunting consider you can only have one character at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. Unfortunately UO is much more item-based now, but insurance just makes it more so. Insurance is a horrible aspect of UO on any shard. If a shard is to have it at all though, it should be full insurance. All or nothing. And hopefully one day nothing on Siege. Half-assed 1-3 item insurance accomplishes nothing at all. Insurance hurts crafters. Insurances hurts thieves. Both of these classes’ last haven is Siege. Insurance, imo, makes combat more imbalanced. Most of all, insurance is bad because it decreases the risk involved in all aspects of gameplay, whether you be a PvPer, miner, crafter, or of any other profession…Perhaps THE MOST unique and good aspect of Siege is that you can LOOT. PvP becomes more fun. Non-PvP becomes more fun. More risk…more danger…the reasons many PvPers and non-PvPers alike play on Siege. No insurance means more meaning to PvP, more meaning to death, more meaning to winning. Lootable equipment is a vital component of Siege. Insurance (and yes, blessings does = insurance) has no place on Siege, or any PvP game, and never will.

I also disagree with your suggestion that with less insurance/blessings, there is “really no reason to continue treasure hunting.” I assume you also include in that no reason to continue PvMing/questing/etc…First of all, I disagree that you should have to PvM/quest and get a bunch of items just so you can PvP. Crafters should provide all you need, and in the form of basic equipment, not runics and uber gear. Of course, you already know this is not the case…that we live in an item-based world. So then I ask, in our item-based world, how is adding more insured items going to make PvPers PvM/t-hunt/quest more? Sure they’ll need to do it to get those uber items, but once they have all the items they need for the 2-3 blessed slots you suggest, then what? Would we not, according to your thinking, be in the same situation again and have to add yet more insurance slots to get PvPers to PvM/quest more? (which as I already said they shouldn’t have to do in the first place). Again, adding more insurance accomplishes nothing. I also think you forget that, unfortunately, and not unfortunately because we don’t have more insurance, but unfortunately because PvP is item-based, PvPers already have to PvM/quest/craft/etc. to compete even without insurance because we can lose our items when we die. So no, you’re wrong…less insurance does not mean PvPers stop PvMing/questing/etc (which again, they shouldn’t have to do)….because PvP is item-based and you can lose your equipment when you die. Even if it did mean PvPers stopped PvMing/questing for those damned items they now need to compete, would that not be a good thing? Why should we be forced to PvM/quest? Now, if you didn’t even mean PvPers when you said there is “really no reason to continue treasure hunting when we have less insurance,” I don’t know what you meant. Because the treasure-hunters will still be treasure hunting and the PvMers still PvMing and the questers still questing, not because they need another item to fill their blessed slot, but because they enjoy it.


<blockquote><hr>

5.) Offer pvp rewards or some kind of reward system for playing Siege or possibly be able to move your vet rewards from one shard to another shard so players don't feel they are trapped on one shard and that moving will mean they must leave behind all their veteran reward.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I disagree. I’ve never agreed with PvP rewards or faction rewards or even vet rewards. The reward is the PvP, the competition between you and the other player. We don’t need to add PvP rewards to encourage non-PvPers to PvP anymore than we need to add PvM rewards to encourage PvPers to PvM (though unfortunately we do do this). In all PvP, as I said, the reward is that adrenaline rush and what is hopefully a fun, good fight. On Siege, the additional reward is the option to loot your opponent’s corpse when you defeat him. But to add in a reward system is no good, no offense.

As for moving your vet rewards from one shard to the next, I disagree. First of all, as I said, I disagree with the very idea of vet rewards. Many of them provide an unfair advantage over newer players. Veteran players already have the advantage of experience and do not need a further item, skill cap, or any other advantage. Furthermore, all vet rewards take away precious dev time where it should be used elsewhere. Speaking of precious dev time, we should not waste what time the devs do spend on Siege on allowing people to transfer vet rewards to Siege. We have far too many other problems to consider using dev time on that. I also doubt that not being able to one’s vet rewards to Siege is a significant cause or plays any role at all in our population problems.


<blockquote><hr>

What do you all think? I am just trying to find out if we need a new pvp server or if Siege can be fixed and salvaged to become more appealing to current day UO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that ROT needs a major change, ROT being the biggest aspect of Siege that can be changed without hurting Siege and will greatly increase Siege’s population if the change is done right. ROT’s timer between gains and skill gain per day cap both need to be greatly altered. My thoughts on ROT are detailed in this thread.

I also think your suggestion number 3 is a good one, though I think a more detailed description besides "PvP" shard would be required. While Siege is the "PvP shard," it is also so much more and many non-PvPers enjoy it greatly.


1) Speed up skill training on Siege.
2) Remove all major/combat-related blessings.

Above are the two biggest changes we need.

Other changes come after, such as BOS removal, instances removal, PvP balancing (which needs to be done on all shards and much of which most of which is not Siege specific), soulstones, name change tokens, condensing the lands, etc…


That said, I do believe Siege is beyond complete saving. We can improve it. It can become much better than it is now. But it will never be the shard it was meant to be. Soulstones will likely never be removed. Item-based combat will never be removed. The lands are unlikely to ever be condensed. Etc... In the future, yet more, new problems will plague Siege since it is updated, gets the same content and expansions as other shards.

The better option is to start from scratch and do it right. Whether that is an option the devs would pursue however is a big question.

 

[GNecromancer]

The question is, is EA actually listening and paying attention about Siege? Have they ever?

 

[Guest]

Id like to see a SP like server in europe, but only Gm skills as most and no runics.
remove runbeatle and hitlower atribute on weaponds.
Normal spellbooks and checks only things blessed.
Remove the limit on how much skills you can gain from rot, but ceep the 5 min between gains.

 

[Guest]

If they made a Siege for Europe, the standard one would die for sure. I just wish they could find some way to get a central pvP shard that everyone could get a good ping for...la

 

[Black Majick]

<blockquote><hr>

First of all I would like to Thank You for what you´re trying to do for Siege!

But for now I think we should just wait for what possible RoT changes will be done in the *crosses fingers* near future. Let´s see what changes will be done and if they make more people give Siege a try.

And I for one would vote NO for multiple blessed items.

That´s all for now. Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont play seige, but i agree with you. Lets give it some time.

 

[Guest]

No just a fell based production shard... keep it simple

 

[imported_ElRay]

<blockquote><hr>

If they made a Siege for Europe, the standard one would die for sure. I just wish they could find some way to get a central pvP shard that everyone could get a good ping for...la

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and a pre AoS one, id be there in a heartbeat!

 

[GNecromancer]

Yah ROT has defiently dealt a horrendous blow the possabillities of Siege.

The system that siege was built on were old rules and old style gameplay. As the game evolved and changed, Siege stayed the same and remained stagnent and is no longer appealing for most casual gamers to play on. Highest priority would be the adjust ROT.

Either remove it or adjust the rate,

Or adjust it so the max value of gain is per skill, not all combined skills as a whole

Or allow a 50% ROT acculation for the days you can't login. So skills above 80 you can gain 2.0 per day right now yes?, say if you take a day off and come back the next day, you'll be able to gain 3.0. This would be more casual friendly. Even the hardcore gamers who play daily still need 3-4 of time just building the character before they cab even compete in pvp, let alone max out.

 

[Guest]

Keep in mind, you do not speak for Siege, what you ask for is not what most on Siege want. You really should debat this on SP forum before you go to U.Hall and demand it.

We do not want more blessing and we already had a debat how to fix RoT and remove it was not the way.

 

[GNecromancer]

My suggestions are just based on the people on Siege, but also address some of the complaints that many casual gamers have put forth as too why they don't play on Siege and what would help make it more friendly to new and casual gamers that are interesting in playing Siege.

Why would a player move to Siege when it'll take 3-5 months to become pvp ready if they log in every day, for a long time. Lets not remove it, adjust it, I'm offering my feedback on how to adjust it. Speed up the delay between gains, or increase the cap, or make it skill based not skills as a whole, or make it so if your able to loginfor a few days, you still retain half the ROT skill points to use that you would had if you were logging in daily.

Those are simply my suggestions about RoT, I would defiently perfer it's adjustment over its removal.

A lot of people also think it's dumb to have only one character. I agree, your arguements about how it "makes it a closer community and you have to depend on each other more" I would agree but the problem is Siege has a very small community that has gradually been getting smaller and smaller. Most people I had talked to "depended" on players with multiple accounts who can utilize multiple resources and characters. Not everyone can afford a multiple account and its a lot harder to compete with people that do have access to multiple accounts and characters. And many people on Siegen do have multiple accounts... if the community was bigger I would agree. If this doesn't change then keep soulstones, if it does change and your allowed more characters then remove the stones. I say.

Also, another reason people don't want to move to Siege is because they'll lose all they're veteran awards they've established on another shard, with no possability of getting more in some cases. You think they want to leave behind their collection of statues, their ethereal mounts and sweet blessed robe with passive resists and all that other cool stuff that they'll lose if they move to Siege?

Multiple blessed items, i don't care about, I am happy with the 1, 2 or 3 I wouldn't mind, but UO has become an item based game, its not the same as it once was. In an item based game were good items are extremely rare, it's nice to be able to use more then 1 at a time. item insurance blows harshly I agree, but it would be nice to see people out more hunting for good items more opportunities to kill em!

I am trying to hear both arguements, the loyal community of siege obviously has priority in what changes should take place on the shard. But don't forget, bloosting the popularity and ease of entry of the shard will help grow a much larger community. And if we want more players there are some compromises that should be taken into account if we want some fresh blood. Yes the community is siege is great, but its dying. Many people have quit and the world only continues to grow in size. They're are only so many times I can circle Luna before I get bored on log out. If I go anywhere else seeing people is few and far between. Most cities are dead, most dungeons are dead a majority of the time.
This is not a healthy state for the shard. The ruleset needs to be fixed and more people need to be encouraged to join.

Being able to carry over vet rewards, a more reasonable ROT system, and being able to make more then a single character would help, but I guess the system of soulstones helps mitigate this now so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

So my opinions are my own and the things I've heard from some siege players and other players. If the community of siege has a consensus idea on what should be done to help the server, then someone should develop it and send it through to EA. I'm trying but my ideas and opinions are looking at it from all angles, your welcome to your own, but atleast I am trying to get EA to take notice of a shard that's very unhealthy right now.

 

[Guest]

Yes, EA/Mythic listens. One step at a time. RoT is at the top of of my agenda. That is just me.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

The one character per account is a ridiculous rule that needs to be removed. All it does is give benefits to more wealthy or die-hard gamers who have multiple UO accounts and is completely biased to casual gamers who can only afford or only wanta one account. This is not fair at all and there is no reason you should only be allowed one character per account on Siege. People exploit this rule by having 2-3 accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Thats one of the best parts of siege, and in fact the major reason that crafters are still useful. Not to mention that it leaves people accountable for their actions and alliances.

 

[Masumatek]

Did you read my post? Just curious. I already stated my opinions so I'm not going to repeat them, but even if you disagree...as Kelmo said, let's take it one step at a time. It makes little sense to me to suggest adding more characters to Siege (which unquestionably has significant negative impacts...which may (or may not) be outweighed by the population boost) when we can change other aspects of Siege first that will not hurt it while still boosting its population, and probably a lot more than more characters will. Let's fix ROT and see where we are after a few months.

Regarding ROT, and not addressed at you, but Siegers in general: I've still seen some of you suggest a "tweak" or "small change" to ROT. It is my opinion that such a change will accomplish very little, if anything. We aren't going to see a significant population boost...or even one at all...unless ROT undergoes a major change. Hence my suggestion of 3-4 weeks for a fully trained character. "Little" changes aren't going to do anything though. Imo, "little" changes to ROT will hurt Siege more than it will help it...the reason being because even if we don't change anything about ROT right now, it's still open to a future change...but if we do change ROT right now, and it's only a little change, I don't see the devs working on yet another change to ROT in the future. A "small tweak" will cause no significant amount of people to join Siege, while sealing our fate as the devs aren't going to change it a second time.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Wrong. Thats one of the best parts of siege, and in fact the major reason that crafters are still useful. Not to mention that it leaves people accountable for their actions and alliances.

[/ QUOTE ]

*nods* You know the truth.

 

[GNecromancer]

Well yah I agree with everyone that a drastic change to ROT is top priority. But I don't understand why it should take so long, it seems like it would be a very simple thing to signifigantly altar, we've waited a LONG time for help with Siege, so hopefully it'll come soon!

 

[Guest]

It does not need to be drastic. Just updated to reflect the addition of power scrolls. RoT is our friend on Siege, I would hate to see it go.

 

[GNecromancer]

But if not a drastic change then you would think it would be a relativly simple fix, one that is long overdue at that. So why has it gone un-addressed for all this time with still no real ETA?

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I would think by tinkering with the total skill gain per day, you could adjust a few numbers in the code and move onto the next issue. It's just figuring out what would be a good fix...la

 

[Guest]

*nods* it is on the burner

 

[Guest]

The far back one? *points way at the back of the proverbial stove*...la

 

[Guest]

*smiles* With patience, much is possible.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, I recall the same type of discussion on the Siege Bless, and the serverline skill gain bugs. Heck for that matter I remember the 6 month delay for publish 16, ROFL...la

 

[Guest]

On other forum outlets We have discussed the possibility of createing a guild on siege, some making characters, others revamping old characters and always came to 2 things

1: Rot many felt that the skill gain system was too slow most pvpers are vets and can train a char up in a matter of a week or two. A couple months is not worth the time

2:aos items with out insurance. weapons,spells,monsters do same damage but resists cant run on par with it. Was good when items were basic but as complex as they are now not worth it. AOS for the most part is what killed siege to me all my pixels I lost I could have got back in time. If I was going to be forced production shard items I might as well play with production shard rules. I still like the idea of only being able to insure what you have equiped.

 

[Guest]

Nobody says have the toon ready in a month, hell, work it a few times a week, when it's ready, it's ready.

Talk about impatient...la

 

[Guest]

It is a game. When you are ready to try, come bring it. *smiles* It will take some time.

 

[imported_GalenKnighthawke]

Half the threads I see are about how awesome Siege is, about how everyone loves Siege, about how much more the rest of the game should be like Siege.

The other half are about how Siege is dying and resources and time need to be spent on fixing it.

*shrugs*

-Galen's player

 

[Guest]

And yet we still fight for the shard. *smiles*

 

[Guest]

When Siege goes, so do I. *draws a line in the sand* This is the last place I play.

 

[Masumatek]

<blockquote><hr>

It does not need to be drastic. Just updated to reflect the addition of power scrolls. RoT is our friend on Siege, I would hate to see it go.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "drastic," "big," etc... update to ROT does not mean killing ROT. It means keeping ROT but greatly reducing it's time delay between gains and its max skill gain cap per day. And yes, it does need to be drastic. While I and many Siegers might be effected by any, even minor change to ROT since it takes us a bit less time to train skills we want to train up, that's not the main reason to change ROT. The main reason to change ROT is that Siege is a ghost shard, dying, and needs a huge population boost. A major change to ROT has the potential to provide that huge population boost. 3-4.5 months if you get your max gains a day every day...as in if you're a power gamer. 6 months and often longer if you're a casual gamer. That's how long training a character on Siege takes right now. The people who don't come to Siege because of ROT I GUARANTEE you are NOT going to be satisfied with any "minor" tweak to ROT. To get the BIG population boost, which is what we so desperately need, we need to make BIG changes to ROT.

 

[Guest]

As screwed up as Siege is, is there a better official shard?

 

[GNecromancer]

Well yah, rude the delay time between skill gains. Not everyone can log in that long each day for the length of time it actually takes to gain skills. Over 80 in a skill, you are allowed 2.0 in total a day for all skills, not only that, the delay between each skill gain requires you to actually be logged in for a long time each day to achieve it. So 2.0 max a day if you stay logged in for hours.

Cut that timer delay down between each gain, make the 3.6 and 2.0 per skill, not "all combined skills above 70/80" or lastly, make the ROT save half the max gain if you miss a day. From 70 it already takes approx 23 minimum! to get a single skill to legendary if your focusing only not taking into account that player needs to stay logged in for hours to achieve that.

It seems relativly simple to fix if the change being needed is not drastic. Yet it has been being debated and request for a long time.

Siege has had to wait a long time for fixes. The server line bug "which allowed people unlimited and instant skill gain by exploiting server lines" blessing, and factions being bugged and are still bugged. Siege is always on the bakc burner and its priorties are always pushed back to further and further updates. Meanwhile Siege is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Masumatek]

<blockquote><hr>

On other forum outlets We have discussed the possibility of createing a guild on siege, some making characters, others revamping old characters and always came to 2 things

1: Rot many felt that the skill gain system was too slow most pvpers are vets and can train a char up in a matter of a week or two. A couple months is not worth the time

2:aos items with out insurance. weapons,spells,monsters do same damage but resists cant run on par with it. Was good when items were basic but as complex as they are now not worth it. AOS for the most part is what killed siege to me all my pixels I lost I could have got back in time. If I was going to be forced production shard items I might as well play with production shard rules. I still like the idea of only being able to insure what you have equiped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your concerns about ROT I understand. It makes no sense for a shard like Siege to have training take near as long as it does. However, we're fine without insurance. It doesn't belong on Siege, or any PvP game...no matter how item-based that game might be. While I don't play other shards, I think the majority of PvP problems faced on Siege are NOT unique to Siege, and do NOT result from a lack of insurance. I think your concerns about insurance will disappear after you play Siege for awhile. And even if you're right and lack of insurance does cause imbalance in PvP, I see little reason to PvP at all in a world where you can't lose your items. Or PvM or mine, or whatever. Why even play an mmo where actual risk doesn't exist...where's the fun in that?

 

[Masumatek]

Here's the change I described in that link from my first post in this thread:


There are multiple solutions to the problem of ROT in its current state. Switching to the normal shard system is not what I’m suggesting. We need something completely new or to keep the basic ROT system with big changes to it. Some solutions may be better than others. However, some also would require a lot of time and resources to pursue.

The change I will suggest here is keeping the basic ROT system, but increasing the max gains per day and decreasing the delay between gains. Though I’m not a dev, I feel this will be easy to do and consume little time and few resources, while still being a good solution.


Just like with the ROT system we have now, skill gains 0-70 will be normal skill gaining. At 70 in a skill, ROT kicks in. What I’m suggesting is this:

Gain Delay: Decrease the delay between gains to a delay of one minute for skill points 70-120. This is a universal delay, unlike now. It will not matter what amount of skill you have, so long as it is above 70. This delay though, like now, will remain per skill. So if I gained in swords, I would have to wait a minute to gain in swords again. But like now, I can still gain in multiple skills at once since the delay is per skill. Decreasing the delay to one minute will shorten the amount of time it takes to get your gains for the day and it will mean that while people are getting the gains they are actually playing instead of doing this: *get gain, play another shard for 10 minutes or do something else for 10 minutes, log back in and get gain*, which is what many people do right now. A two minute delay might be fine too, but it shouldn’t be more than that.


Gain Cap: Max gains allowed per day for skills 70-120 is 10 full points (or 100 .1 gains) in all skills 70+ combined. This is a universal cap, unlike now. It will not matter what amount of skill you have, so long as it is above 70.

What this change means is that a 7xGM character will take 21 days to complete. A 6x120 character will take 30 days to complete. This is a good compromise between overnight or “instant” characters and the slow snail training we have now that takes many and possibly many, many, many months, to complete. I personally feel the new system can be a bit faster than 21-30 days. But some people do have a point…we don’t want it “too fast.” This change should satisfy those people AND most importantly the people who do not come to Siege or leave Siege because training takes too long. 21-30 days is over 3x as fast as the 3-4.5 months (though still a good amount of time and definitely not “too fast”). Our population will increase greatly. Hopefully this will eventually lead to a stable, healthy population and a prosperous, much more fun Siege Perilous.


Gain Storage: However, with the above suggestion, people who don’t log in every day (or don’t get their max gains in a day) can still take much longer to finish training, just as they can with the current system.

Because of this, I suggest a skill gain “reservoir” addition. If you can’t log in every day or don’t get your max gains, you will have a storage of extra skill gaining points for when you are able to log in and play. Now, this should not stack indefinitely. I am NOT suggesting if someone logs out for ten days they all of a sudden can use 110 skill points to train on the eleventh day. What I am suggesting is a small storage capped at 5-10, 10 probably being better, additional skill points to use in training.

Some examples of the skill storage addition I am suggesting:
1) I log in today and get my gains, but don’t log in tomorrow. The day after tomorrow I will have 20 points (10 stored + a normal 10) with which to gain in my skills above 70.
2) I log in today and get my gains. But now I don’t log in for another four days. The fifth day, I will still have only 20 points with which to gain in my skills above 70, since the storage is capped at 10 points.
3) If I log in today and only gain 5 points in my skills above 70 and then have to log off, tomorrow I will have 15 points with which to gain (the 5 I didn’t finish gaining from today + the normal 10 for tomorrow).

This skill storage addition will help shorten the training gap between power, normal, and casual gamers. It will encourage more casual gamers to come play and be willing to start fresh on Siege, people who might otherwise still be discouraged despite the increase in gains cap and shortening of the delay.

Now, I think this would be a very, very good and important addition to the increase in skill gain cap per day and the decrease in the delay between skill gains. However, it is not essential to the change. The main part of this suggested solution, the increase in the skill gain cap and the decrease in the delay, should still be implemented regardless of whether or not this storage addition can be. However if it can be done and the devs are willing, I think this “reservoir” system should be an addition to the new ROT skill gaining system on Siege.


That about covers it. This change to ROT to speed up skill training so that a player can make a complete character in 3-4 weeks will definitely add a lot of players to Siege’s population and may just be enough for, eventually, Siege to once again have a very healthy population.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

I think your concerns about insurance will disappear after you play Siege for awhile. And even if you're right and lack of insurance does cause imbalance in PvP, I see little reason to PvP at all in a world where you can't lose your items. Or PvM or mine, or whatever. Why even play an mmo where actual risk doesn't exist...where's the fun in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I played UO well before insurance. I played Siege from around 2000.5 - around 2004 almost full time, logging on every now and again(mostly collecting rewards)up till 06 but still played a few hours a week I remember my last battle chasing yoda around moonglow and out pops jade with her ninja tamer All kill!! HiYah!!oOoOoOoOoOoOoOo. but AoS items killed the fun in all of it the rich stay rich while the new and starting over remain poor. Aos items w/o some type of insurance in unbalanced for any new player on any shard in a potential pvp setting.

 

[Masumatek]

I agree Siege is way too item-based but then again so is any shard and I also think insurance only makes things more item-based, increases the gap between the haves and have-nots, and forces you to PvM/quest/craft even more to compete. Nor do I see how playing on a shard where you can't lose your items can be fun no matter what problems Siege has. I see the choice as either Siege or no UO...how anyone and especially PvPers can play a no-risk mmo I will never understand.

 

[Guest]

Well its more the resists system than anything. If the resists system was changed say to something like the old AR system(keeping the mods). making leather the weakest in AR to plate being the strongest insurance wouldnt be that big of a deal. but alot would have to change to create a viable system that works with todays UO.

 

[Guest]

Saving Siege would be easier. *smiles*

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Wrong. Thats one of the best parts of siege, and in fact the major reason that crafters are still useful. Not to mention that it leaves people accountable for their actions and alliances.

[/ QUOTE ]

*nods* You know the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the truth in the past, now it stop us from getting more players. It's time to open up for more players, Siege need new blood.

 

[GNecromancer]

A simple thing, anyone else like the idea of Umbra on siege becoming an un-guarded city? It just has all the makings of an evil city. we have Buc Den. It would be nice to have a dedicated evil city without lord british's guards... Umbra just feels like an evil city.