Bigger Shards = More People 4 UO

[Vyal]

You can see that UO is getting killed by other MMO's. Yet there is no better PvP MMO out there. This game is not a memory hog people can run it like a instant messenger and watch movies, play it at work, at school, on laptop with wi-fi. It's still an amazing game concept.

I think that if you had more shards like ATL with mass's of people playing at any given time PvP would become even better everything would become even better. More people would go out and buy UO when they see 90% of the servers are like ATL people who play on EMU shards would come back on play production shards. People who play games like WoW may consider playing UO becuase they would see more pics videos on sites like Youtube of hundreds of people doing things with each other.

The reason is there are to many shards, the game has died off to much and alot of the shards are left empty while people have all their items gold and such on these shards with none on them so they quit becuase the game is boring to them and they don't want to pay 30 bucks to xfer or make a new player on a bigger shard.

This is going to kill SA, EA why settle for a million when you could easily get 20 million? Combine servers, or allow say 6 months of free transfers before the release of SA so the shards can become larger and people stop quiting the game becuase the shards they play on are empty half the time.

Thats my two cents and it's seriously just a good game plan.

 

[Viper09]

I totally agree. There are too many shards in this day for UO. Yeah, if they do it a lot of people may lose their houses, but this does need to be done IMO. I mean, how many servers do most MMO's have on average today?

I would suggest for the shards getting terminated, give everyone unlimited space in their bank boxes for a temp. amount of time while they move their stuff into their bank boxes, collapse their houses, etc, and free transfers. Maybe EA can buy the houses off of people for reasonable shard market value (such as EA buying Luna houses for base value + a reasonable extra sum).

Or, wipe all houses on all shards with the mentioned idea, freeze housing temp. while everyone snuggles up in their chosen shards

 

[sablestorm]

You're talking about messing with people investments in UO here. Part of the reason I don't play other games is because I'm so vested in UO. My friends and I have gathered houses together over the years, creating out own RP villages. If you wipe that out, suddenly we don't have as must vested in UO as we used to. There's less reason to keep the accounts active, more temptation to take a break and go visit other games. I think it would be a colossal mistake to wipe all housing out.

 

[Vyal]

I understand where you are coming from but why be so selfish? Wouldn't you rather see more players playing this game then keeping your stupid house?

How much fun is it role playing with a whole twenty active people playing on your whole shard?

I would take the loss of you for a few brand new players any day.

Most people play a game to have fun, kill stuff, PvP... I don't care to much for people who keep the same house in UO for years and wouldn't build another one unless someone had a gun to their head.

Simple you can build a new house and keep your RP city and there you have it but you get to start over with more people, what in the world is so bad about that?

There is no draw backs here only a step forward. More then half of the houses on any given shard are empty OSI owned houses, or some guy that owns 15 zillion UO accounts and has houses placed in all the good locations.

 

[Sunrise]

UO Needs a major change to bring back some new blood.

So they destory some servers. They lose what customers they have left. Then everyone is on one server then what happens when they leave?

again making one big server is not the answer. UO in general needs a major overhaul to keep up with todays game.

 

[Coyt]

when is the last time you saw UO for sale in a shop? or any advertisment for it when you browsing?
no new people will know about it if noone tell about it,and old players need a reminder aswell

 

[Vyal]

No if you change it to much it isn't UO that solves nothing just go make a new game for all that. Point is SA is going to be utter fail without getting more people per shard.

The only way to do that is to merge them not try to turn UO into something it isn't. Merge shards or allow free transfers this is the only way to fix the current issues in UO.

 

[Old Man of UO]

I understand where you are coming from but why be so selfish? Wouldn't you rather see more players playing this game then keeping your stupid house?...

I can't get one of the OSI owned houses, but perhaps you could give me your keep/castle then I would move to a more populous chard. Surely you would give up all your houses on all your accounts to see more players in the game.

 

[AesSedai]

... Point is SA is going to be utter fail without getting more people per shard.

The only way to do that is to merge them not try to turn UO into something it isn't. Merge shards or allow free transfers this is the only way to fix the current issues in UO.

- I've never been a huge fan of ultimatums...

So, apparently omniscient and unselfish and solely looking for the betterment of UO, Vyal...
Could you please tell me what happens when your plan is invoked, and succeeds, and a lot more people start playing UO, after you have removed a lot of housing space?
Where would these new players dwell then, if UO did consolidate shards in order to provide more players per area that you play, in order to appease thou?
Would you let them all share your house & lockdown space? Would you let them design your home as they see fit?

Or, would you simply be happier if things remained as they are now & more people were playing?

Did you play when there wasn't enough space for some players to have their own house, when placing a 7x7 pre-built was considered a 'victory'? Can you imagine the uproar when there isn't enough land to allow players to have their own home?
Me thinks there are better ways to get the players per area that you desire.

 

[Freelsy]

Simple you can build a new house and keep your RP city and there you have it but you get to start over with more people, what in the world is so bad about that?

There is no draw backs here only a step forward. More then half of the houses on any given shard are empty OSI owned houses, or some guy that owns 15 zillion UO accounts and has houses placed in all the good locations.

It is in this statement where the ultimate flaw exists. If you bring shards together, you would need another faucet. Which im sure is harder than it sounds. There will not be room to build additional homes if you suddenly merge hundreds, if not thousands of players together. Trust me, I play Siege Perilous. I'm all for getting more people into UO.. But that would destroy peoples hard work and effort spent on getting those awesome Luna houses and other tough feats that have been accomplished.

 

[Petrify]

Mmhmm and who do you combine Oceania with?

 

[sablestorm]

I understand where you are coming from but why be so selfish? Wouldn't you rather see more players playing this game then keeping your stupid house?

Much like skills and items, housing as something you attain in game. While we're implementing your idea, let's eliminate all items and start from scratch so we can have a better balanced and bug free item system. While we're at it lets wipe out all the skills everyone has worked for and balance all the skills and start from scratch. The hope is to start completely from scratch and build a game that meets our ideal image of what UO should be.

The reality? That won't happen because how could they ever meet everyone's ideal? Would you give up all your items? Would you give up all your skills? If so, wouldn't that be the same as starting anew on a more populous shard and bringing your friends over too?

How dare everyone be selfish and keep what they've worked for years (11+ years in my case) to build up. How dare they be selfish and not want to hang onto that.

How much fun is it role playing with a whole twenty active people playing on your whole shard?

I have more than 20 active players in my guild, let alone on my shard so this statement doesn't apply. Perhaps you're in the wrong guild/shard. If you are so unselfish, why don't you give up all and start a brand new character on a more populated shard? Or are you expecting other shards to be closed and people to flock to your own shard? You talk a good game, hinting that I'm selfish for my view point, but it doesn't take EA to herd folks to a more populated shard. Why haven't you switched and convinced your comrades to switch with you? You could create new characters on more populated shards or you could invest in a transfer token as well. It's all well and good to talk and accuse people of being selfish, but your actions don't demonstrate you're willing to make the sacrifice you expect me to make. So speak the truth. You wouldn't mind losing me for a few new players, so long as you aren't affected, right?

I would take the loss of you for a few brand new players any day.

I'm sure you would, but with your short-sighted idea, you would lose me and would fail to garner new players. Have you seen how many new MMO's have failed recently? There's alot more competition out there. What UO has going for it is it's history and community and yet you want to wipe that clean? That sounds immensely stupid to me. You really wouldn't attract new players and you'd lose players in the bargain.

Most people play a game to have fun, kill stuff, PvP... I don't care to much for people who keep the same house in UO for years and wouldn't build another one unless someone had a gun to their head.

Simple you can build a new house and keep your RP city and there you have it but you get to start over with more people, what in the world is so bad about that?

There is no draw backs here only a step forward. More then half of the houses on any given shard are empty OSI owned houses, or some guy that owns 15 zillion UO accounts and has houses placed in all the good locations.

There are a ton of drawbacks, but you can't see them. You are banking on attracting new players, but you're assuming that having more populated shards will attract them. Tell me, how are these new players supposed to see the more populated shards if they don't try the game out. Furthermore, with the numbers of players you lose by eliminating their home shards, the more populated shards wouldn't look all that different than the shards you have already.

SO, what's different? Nothing. Again, your idea is short sighted. It's a dream with no basis in reality.

 

[Yalp]

You won't "gain" anything from consolidating shards.

You loose shards' individual history
You open a can of worms re: housing
You increase lag and crash issues
You increase event and mob farming problems
You loose players
You concentrate cheaters, hackers, dupers
You loose a sense of community

You can already accomplish your own private consolidation..
transfer to the shard of your choice.

 

[Fink]

Mmhmm and who do you combine Oceania with?

In all the threads where shard consolidation is suggested, I've never heard that question answered satisfactorily.

You can already accomplish your own private consolidation..
transfer to the shard of your choice.

I don't know why this issue keeps coming up when advocates don't take the initiative and move to a more populated shard but insist that everyone else does.

 

[Setnaffa]

You all need to understand that UO is a Cash Cow to EA/Mythic. That means it's a steady and profitable stream of income from its current customers, but very few new customers come on board.

To us, the established players, UO is our game. We are loyal and dedicated players. Most of us have spent years building up our characters, their treasures, and their experiences.

You also need to understand UO is not a PvP game. It is a PvM game. Sure, we have a large group of players that only PvP, but the majority of players never kill another character. To them, being alone in a dungeon is a good thing since they can do anything they want (alone or with their guild/friends) without having to share with anyone else.

Most established players also have a huge booty of treasure; Items and memories they've collected over the years. Most of the items are stored in their house(s) while their memories are mostly of events on their shard of choice.

If there was a shard merger or if they force everyone from Shard X to move to Shard Y, most of these players would be forced to leave their treasures and memories behind. I for one, would lose interest in the game and quit. I believe more would end up quitting than EA/Mythic would ever gain from such a drastic change.

 

[Old Man of UO]

...
If there was a shard merger or if they force everyone from Shard X to move to Shard Y, most of these players would be forced to leave their treasures and memories behind. I for one, would lose interest in the game and quit. I believe more would end up quitting than EA/Mythic would ever gain from such a drastic change.

In a nutshell, this is exactly what would happen.

Is it possible to merge housing areas only onto various sets of sub-servers? Dunno, but even that would be a huge upset for many.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

While the original poster is probably right, merging shards isn't a trivial thing, and it is probably not going to work. I remember that even the split between Trammel and Felucca destroyed communities. There are a lot of player-run towns, guild headquarters and points of interests that would spimply be destroyed by merging shards.

We should come up with other suggestions! The simple merging of shards will not work. I once had the idea that the game designers should create a new Britannia, which is just like the old one, only twice as big. This way, more houses would fit on the shard without cluttering the landscape. Plus, most of the houses are owned by inactive players nowadays. Maybe there's a solution for this problem as well?

 

[Gheed]

Offer up the right incentives, Build a good story behind it... it could happen in a way a lot of folks would be very happy with. It would be a tremendous amount of work though.

 

[Xclio]

I think a merger of shards could be an awesome thing pending it was done right, as for those saying they wouldn't be willing to lose something for a better community you are simply selfish, I would gladly drop my spare house to allow for someone to move into the area and make teh community better.

For those that say they don't want to lose their keep or castle I say quit your whining, I gave up 2 keeps to move to a more populated shard so that I could enjoy a better community and not be a hermit.

 

[Old Man of UO]

Offer up the right incentives, Build a good story behind it... it could happen in a way a lot of folks would be very happy with. It would be a tremendous amount of work though.

I would give up my keep for a 6 story 14x14 if it had the same storage as my keep has.

 

[Gheed]

I would give up my keep for a 6 story 14x14 if it had the same storage as my keep has.

Thats something like what I was thinking.

Stage 1 (6 months)- Suspend the ability to create new chars/place houses on the targeted shard. A few new areas opened up for housing on all other shards with refugees getting first choice (guilds in the first wave with the ability to choose their own group of plots for a town) non guild refugees and special exceptions in the second wave) Add perks to the (pre-placed) plots ie 22X22 custom 5 story plots. Create customizeable castle/keep sized plots for castle/keep refugees.

Stage 2 (3months) Marking runes, recalling, and resing turned off. No bank (bankers have fled) Rubblelize trammel and malas, build a moongate from all other shards and let everyone blow it up. (talisman of light daemon summoning, explosion/conflagurationpots) Add in perks from this such as tokens for customizable castle/keep plots or deeds to unclaimed refugee plots, custom housing tiles, Soulstones, moongate frags, Mining ore from mountain rubble locked down in your house countless uniqe items. Dying while on this shard transports your ghost back to your home shard all items you are carrying are lost... no insurance.

Stage 3 (forever) - a new pre pub 16 PvP shard. Once a certain percentage of trammel and malas are destroyed, access to these lands from fel moongates go away forever leaving only fel/tokonunu (whatever the kids call it) except Tok becomes corrupt and the town there is red only... blues get guardwhacked. All magical items are destroyed. New character creation is allowed and we start over.

Use our main compliants over the years against us.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I think EA needs to advertise UO and we would all be okay and everyone should move to siege perilous where the dupes dont exist the economy is fair, the building is good and ya... come to siege perilous! Thanks!

 

[Old Man of UO]

... everyone should move to siege perilous where the dupes dont exist ...

Here's perhaps the biggest lie It's just not as rampant (or noticed yet) as the other shards.

 

[It Lives]

I was thinking maybe a green acres shard, but its a snowy scene(nothing on it but 2 weapons). On this new shard you get nothing, no clothes no armor no house....nothing. If your one of the lucky two to have one of the two weapons you can not be ressed and once your dead you can petition for the spirit speak skill to talk with your buddies.

This new shard would be for the top 10, who the most on stratics.
yay!

 

[Gheed]

Here's perhaps the biggest lie It's just not as rampant (or noticed yet) as the other shards.

Siege/Production shard arguments always remind me of the Mac/PC commercials.

 

[TheScoundrelRico]

Here's perhaps the biggest lie...

You have proof to show otherwise?...la

 

[Old Man of UO]

You have proof to show otherwise?...la

There is no such thing as "proof" that would satisfy everyone/anyone. Anything can be disputed, claimed or edited with Photoshop. I've seen suspicious but nothing that could be called "proof." If it happens on other shards for profit, it happens on Siege. However at the same time, denying it does not mean it doesn't happen. Anyway, that's a topic for a different discussion... not trying to derail this one.

OH yeah, that reminds me of one more incentive that could be offered to entice players... NO RICO! LA! j/k...

 

[Yalp]

For those that say they don't want to lose their keep or castle I say quit your whining, I gave up 2 keeps to move to a more populated shard so that I could enjoy a better community and not be a hermit.

Good for you on making a choice that worked for you. A simple solution to anyone that thinks shards should be merged is to give up your stuff on shard X and move to a shard that better suits you. Wonder why you don't want to allow others to make choices which work for them?

 

[ColterDC]

There's not only to many shards but to many landmasses.

Start by deleting one of the landmasses... Malas would be my choice, since deleting it would solve 3 problems.

1. Move Doom to Tram and Fel, then the Doom only in Tram arguement ends.
2. Delete Luna, god I hate that city.
3. The population would be slightly less spread out on individual shards.

 

[slavoie]

Mmorpg's are what the players make of them. The Dev's are only responsible for making the playgroud, what you do with it is up to you. Just because there is 20 million options, dosen't mean you have to do them all. In fact I would think that is better, cause it makes a player decide what they want to do, cause you cant do everything in life.

If your the type of player that wanted everything "brought" to you then I would suggest a nice new blueray player, instead of a persistant online realm of almost infinate possibility, where you can choose how you play.

IE.. It's the responsibilty of the players to come together not the devs.

 

[Xclio]

Good for you on making a choice that worked for you. A simple solution to anyone that thinks shards should be merged is to give up your stuff on shard X and move to a shard that better suits you. Wonder why you don't want to allow others to make choices which work for them?

I made the move on my own because I know how futile it is to petition anything in this game and actually see it done no matter how much sense it makes. Then to top it off if you try to have a discussion about it on these boards 90% of the time it becomes a flame war anyways.

To answer your question more directly I moved for my own enjoyment as I would rather not sit on a dead shard and see one person every 2 days, I play UO for interaction not to sit quietly as a hermit.

The reason I say merge the shards is for the overall betterment of the entire community, sure we will lose some, we will **** others off but then the game will at least be a small fraction of what it used to be with banks of multiple cities populated with crowds of people allowing for real interaction instead of one bank on the entire shard having people at it. I truely miss the days where I could go from Brit(east and west), to Skara, then to Moonglow, and finally to Vesper and have a substantial population of players at every one of those banks.

Are there problems with this idea sure there are and I will be the first to admit it but the problem is those that will point out those problems also will make no effort to find a solution and if a solution is presented to them most will ignore it anyways and continue with the teenage bickering that is so prevelant on these boards

 

[Tom_Builder]

You can see that UO is getting killed by other MMO's. Yet there is no better PvP MMO out there. This game is not a memory hog people can run it like a instant messenger and watch movies, play it at work, at school, on laptop with wi-fi. It's still an amazing game concept.

I think that if you had more shards like ATL with mass's of people playing at any given time PvP would become even better everything would become even better. More people would go out and buy UO when they see 90% of the servers are like ATL people who play on EMU shards would come back on play production shards. People who play games like WoW may consider playing UO becuase they would see more pics videos on sites like Youtube of hundreds of people doing things with each other.

The reason is there are to many shards, the game has died off to much and alot of the shards are left empty while people have all their items gold and such on these shards with none on them so they quit becuase the game is boring to them and they don't want to pay 30 bucks to xfer or make a new player on a bigger shard.

This is going to kill SA, EA why settle for a million when you could easily get 20 million? Combine servers, or allow say 6 months of free transfers before the release of SA so the shards can become larger and people stop quiting the game becuase the shards they play on are empty half the time.

Thats my two cents and it's seriously just a good game plan.

I would have no problem if they got rid of ALT, it would force all the people who play there to other shards. That would increase the amount of players on the less crowded shards.

 

[Rubican]

These "merge shards" threads keep popping up for good reason...Most are ghost towns. I play Pacific which is often regarded as the highest populated West coast shard. With the exception of the common hangouts (Luna) it is dead. Please don't suggest I move to an East coast shard as I live in California and my ping there stinx!

As I stated before: I'M TIRED OF BEING THE GUY IN "I AM LEGEND"!

Shard mergers need to happen (at least on the West coast).

Get over your happy little pixel house, you'll find a new one.

 

[Arrgh]

I understand where you are coming from but why be so selfish? Wouldn't you rather see more players playing this game then keeping your stupid house?

How much fun is it role playing with a whole twenty active people playing on your whole shard?

I would take the loss of you for a few brand new players any day.

Most people play a game to have fun, kill stuff, PvP... I don't care to much for people who keep the same house in UO for years and wouldn't build another one unless someone had a gun to their head.

Simple you can build a new house and keep your RP city and there you have it but you get to start over with more people, what in the world is so bad about that?

There is no draw backs here only a step forward. More then half of the houses on any given shard are empty OSI owned houses, or some guy that owns 15 zillion UO accounts and has houses placed in all the good locations.

Here's a great idea to supplement what you're wanting Vyal. Why not make it where everyone who wants to do nothing but PvP move and leave the others who are satisfied with where they are at stay where they're at. I don't see anything selfish with this idea either. It's the same thing no matter how you look at it except that it'll be all the people for the most part that want PvP all lumped together in one place! Kinda like the one's that are already established...

I do understand wanting more people to hang with tbh, it's nice to see some signs of life. I'm just against the idea of having to start all over again not to mention I do like the freedom I have on the smaller shards to hunt what I want to without being pestered very often. If I did nothing but PvP I'd want something like Atlantic though, the PvP scene there is pretty fun. Good luck.

 

[Xclio]

I think with mergers it would no doubt need to be geographical to keep connections as unaffected as possible.

 

[OriginsSyn]

If there was a shard merge, aye I would lose my house. I would possibly not have the same size. And that's totally fine with me! Though of course people with keeps and castles may (in the majority) feel differently. If they do wipe housing, I would say give the RP'ers first pick of the lot for their towns. Submit a petition to the amount of houses desired (not to exceed #) and the location wanted. Staff could then potentially mark off that area so people know it's reserved so everyone's not looking at the same plot. Some places would be off limits IMO, as in Luna and outside it and Umbra.

I would love to see a shard merger, instead of saving up resources to wait 10 hours for a crafter to come through Luna that can make a pair of Stitcher's. The shard is so dead peoplewise I am considering quitting after these events. If you want to see people, you go to Fel. Only problem there, my brother got the PVP'ing gene.

If there was a shard merge I think it should be done tactfully. Tie it in with British's dissapearance into the Void. Get Garriot's express permission to bring British back for this event, and maybe in the end he gives his life, or ends up getting killed by Minax but with it, powers the artifact he took with him to combine some of the shards of the Gem of Sosaria in an attempt to reforge the entire thing. Make it a long event though so people know what's going to be happening.

It'll solve the problem of the halted UO timetrack (IE no King but the King's still alive but impossible to bring back in), and it gives the staff a chance to win players back. I always thought that'd be a cool advertisement for a game, where you can actually participate in the changing of the world (and not in the sense of, "You built a character up and have a house! You changed the world! Now go PvP!"). When new players joined the vets would have more stories to tell for once. Instead of, "yeah that one time we killed Dreadhorn with that new pally" they can be hanging at a bank and talking, "Haha man when I saw British I tried to EB him just for the hell of it!"

Anyways...I'd say just my .02 but I think I have to say my .05.

 

[Xclio]

That's actually a pretty good start for a storyline there Origin, I think the story line may have been one of the largest humps to hurtle beyond getting people to accept the change and I think you have a good basis there to build off of.

 

[Bara]

People are always looking to random reasons why "Uo is dying", yet they conveniantly always seem to overlook the obvious:

It's an old, outdated game.

You love the game, I love the game, but have the courage to admit to yourselves that it's essentially a retro game. This is the key reason that it isn't popular, why it's population is stagnating and why new people aren't flocking to it. Any other reasoning you can come up with is going to be meaningless compaired to this and is essentially grasping at straws. Don't try to kid yourself.

Forcing people to leave the shards they love will do nothing to grow the game.

 

[Cadderly]

You won't "gain" anything from consolidating shards.

You loose shards' individual history
You open a can of worms re: housing
You increase lag and crash issues
You increase event and mob farming problems
You loose players
You concentrate cheaters, hackers, dupers
You loose a sense of community

You can already accomplish your own private consolidation..
transfer to the shard of your choice.

Hate to tell you this but all these things you mention are already happening because of of not having enough ppl on each shard. Except maybe the lag but the last couple months have been pretty laggy for alot of us
s

 

[Spree]

Just use the free transfer token they gave out few years ago. I have a few of the worthless tokens on siege.

 

[Lady Michelle]

Im not sure, but back in the day when UO first came out the few shards that UO had were over populated there was a 10 to 15 minute wait before you were able to log in to play to fix that UO made more shards?
You were also limited on how long you could stay on?
So if Im corrected destroying shards and to populated another shard could over populated that shard and bring back that 10 to 15 minute wait, and limit our play time.
That would also discourage new players to play because no one wants to wait to play a game and only be limited on how long they can play.

One thing that could be done for under populated shards is when a new player logs in all they have to choose from is those shards for at least a month before they can access populated shards. Would also gives old players a chance to also help and show new players around their shard making the new players choice a great experiance so they will never want to play on another shard.

 

[Bardie]

Im not sure, but back in the day when UO first came out the few shards that UO had were over populated there was a 10 to 15 minute wait before you were able to log in to play to fix that UO made more shards?
You were also limited on how long you could stay on?
So if Im corrected destroying shards and to populated another shard could over populated that shard and bring back that 10 to 15 minute wait, and limit our play time.
That would also discourage new players to play because no one wants to wait to play a game and only be limited on how long they can play.

One thing that could be done for under populated shards is when a new player logs in all they have to choose from is those shards for at least a month before they can access populated shards. Would also gives old players a chance to also help and show new players around their shard making the new players choice a great experiance so they will never want to play on another shard.

The 10-15 minute wait you speak of was cause you were on a 14.4 modem, the servers that housed UO were crap, ect..but back to topic, i would gladly give up my house to merge shards, granted i want to have a bigger bank size to do the move i didn't see if anyone was talking about people that have char on multiple shards (i have 7 on every shard all built up) i would gladly let some of them die off as well. My favorite game is dying a slow drawn out death

 

[Viper09]

Let's be honest here. As much as I like this idea, heck I got 2nd post here approving, hehe, it isn't a very good idea as it would make people quit.

The only real way for them to do it, is to let players decide to consolidate the shards on their own time. By this, I mean EA should handout transfer tokens for free to players so they can move themselves to a more populated shard of their choice.

Maybe the tokens would give a select number of shards that are the most populated in certain regions. (most western populated, most mid-west, etc)

 

[Storm]

I prefer it the way it is I can remember when things were so crowded you could not get a house anywhere you would try to mine and spots had been mined, you wanted to go fight a certain critter or critters and the place was packed and camped big time no thank you
I play on ls and its just right very easy to find groups if you want and still be able to go it alone to places and not have them be overrun

 

[BardMal]

Believe it or not, most players in UO don't want to PvP.

Of all MMORPGs, UO has the highest player base of women. Housing, personalized crafting and deco is a HUGE reason for that.

UO players are a captive audience only to the extent that their personal emotional needs are fulfilled. This is a key factor that many do not "seem" to understand, but actually intuitively know.

The target group of people who find anonymity in a crowd, and humiliation through repeated slaughter by other players is a very small, and tends to lack long term devotion.

A BOD style organizing book for seeds will probably satisfy a larger player base that is more important to the long term viability of UO than any PvP modification ever will.

The 15 million dollars a year UO seems to gross is more than sufficient to justify is current operational expenses.

The allure of the on screen flashy bling and violence of the newer games is problematic towards creating and maintaining long term communities and interpersonal relationships of a player base.

It is player base relationships which actually maintain the player base.

Most of the people calling for leverage on the player base to increase the PvP community fail to understand that. They seem want more victims forced or enticed to offer themselves up for slaughter. They expect an external force to supply them with a larger community.

Compassion, consideration, and a respect for individuals coupled with symbolic gestures of their value are what build a community.

The shard where we both play, Legends, was a great example of this in the early days. Most of the really good PvPers typically treated people with a semblance of dignity and respect, often even their "easy kills".

 

[Viper09]

I prefer it the way it is I can remember when things were so crowded you could not get a house anywhere you would try to mine and spots had been mined, you wanted to go fight a certain critter or critters and the place was packed and camped big time no thank you
I play on ls and its just right very easy to find groups if you want and still be able to go it alone to places and not have them be overrun

But that's what was so nice. So many people made getting a house so much more rewarding, mining was never that hard if you went to more secluded locations. Yeah fighting was a bit harder, but people were actually quite nice. I remember trading turns with people in the Ogre Lord room. More people made playing more rewarding IMO. But that's just my play-style

 

[Yalp]

The reason I say merge the shards is for the overall betterment of the entire community, sure we will lose some, we will **** others off but then the game will at least be a small fraction of what it used to be with banks of multiple cities populated with crowds of people allowing for real interaction instead of one bank on the entire shard having people at it. I truely miss the days where I could go from Brit(east and west), to Skara, then to Moonglow, and finally to Vesper and have a substantial population of players at every one of those banks.

So you want to merge shards so more people will bank sit? Interesting point to argue. Sorry but I am too busy on my little shard of Baja to bank sit all day. I'm off to either work some skills on my own, or put a shout out in guild/alliance chat for something more challenging. Or wait.. I can actually hunt around for non-allied players to hook up.. that's easy enough to do, cause on our shard we know each other, cooperate with each other, and work with each other.

I choose to stay on my "small" shard.. but I won't stop you from transferring to a larger shard of your own choosing!

 

[phantus]

No thanks. I'm good. You feel free to move wherever you like though.

 

[Harb]

This has been explored on many threads many times and for quite some time. It begins and ends the same way, someone preferring a PvP playstyle isn't happy with a shard's Fel population and proposes a merger, and those who prefer other aspects of the game factually state it would end their association with UO and EA. Both sides have valid reasons. And the subtext is always the same, not enough folks play as I do, consolidating the servers will help me and/ or others like me somewhat. But it takes away choice. And memories, preferences, and belongings are lost. Most significantly of all - its disrespectful of time and effort already vested in the game. Regardless of how you feel, do this and this game becomes extinct within 90 days.

Having said that however, it would be an error for dev to ignore your base premise, that PvP suffers from lack of participation. But the truth is, they don't ignore it, in fact they bend over backward to address it. Nothing to date, and seemingly nothing on the horizon is going to change what people prefer to do for entertainment, therefore current subscribers likely don't provide the answer. So something else has to be considered, as it is clearly evident dev has been, is, and will remain commited to being the PvP game of choice.

Not new to these boards is an idea that may work - "common lands." Shards don't change, mergers don't happen. Shard transfers continue, as do sales of transfer tokens. But a new land is born, with both a Tram/ Fel "side," accessed from any moongate on any shard. A character passing through can't go to any other shard other than their shard of origin. In the common land, there are no houses, no vendors, and player trade windows are disabled. If necessary, delete all backpack items passing through the gate. Items falling to the ground decay "on contact." Common lands play host to large scale EM events on one side, and full blown battles occur on the other. Dev efforts end with introduction - team focus remains on regular shards/ lands, the common lands become a battlefield and an EM or player sponsored event platform. Would that answer the mail?

 

[Tina Small]

Not new to these boards is an idea that may work - "common lands." Shards don't change, mergers don't happen. Shard transfers continue, as do sales of transfer tokens. But a new land is born, with both a Tram/ Fel "side," accessed from any moongate on any shard. A character passing through can't go to any other shard other than their shard of origin. In the common land, there are no houses, no vendors, and player trade windows are disabled. If necessary, delete all backpack items passing through the gate. Items falling to the ground decay "on contact." Common lands play host to large scale EM events on one side, and full blown battles occur on the other. Dev efforts end with introduction - team focus remains on regular shards/ lands, the common lands become a battlefield and an EM or player sponsored event platform. Would that answer the mail?

Harb, something like this even intrigues someone like me who generally opposes the idea of shard mergers....until I ask myself why go to the common land if you aren't into PvP. And if you are interested in PvP, what do you get out of it when you can't carry anything in your backpack, since we don't have anything in place now that normally and routinely puts things in your bankbox? No gold, no looted items, no artifact rewards, no power scrolls. There would need to be a very compelling and enduring reason to enter this special "common land." Rank, points, what? And if any of these, what would they be useful for and/or how would they be recognized?