I have a thought about characture slots.

[Guest]

For reasons that are unimportant... I thought about this.


Would it benefit EA to say all active accounts are able to have 15 charactures attached to them.
If you want 15 charactures on atlantic, so be it.
If yo want 1 on 15 shards, so be it.

When you log in, your characture list has the shard next to his/her name.

15 charactures.

Of these 15 charactures you can transfer to any shard, nude. No items in your bank box or on you or in your backpack.

But you get to keep your stats.
Essentially you would have a potential bank box on each shard.
But you cant transfer from shard a to b with anything on you.

FULL SHARD TRANSFER VIA tokens would still work the same.

1 house per account too as is.

Any thoughts on the pros and cons?

 

[WarUltima]

um... why?

The only thing Id rather see is allowing 2 houses per account. Since many of us playing multiple shards (in my case my home shard that's quiet as death and the other shard with much more actions going on e.g PvP) but only have 1 account.

Judging by the subscribers UO has in its current state. UO has much more land availiable for housing. I am a 9yr vet and trust me Ive been thru a lot. It used to be like winning the lottery if you can place a large brick house, and many vet players had experienced not being able to place a small 7x7 house back in the days.

I dont mind if EA pull that "2nd house token" crap that make us pay for it. But paying for a 2nd account just so I can have another house on another shard is simply too much.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

um... why?

The only thing Id rather see is allowing 2 houses per account. Since many of us playing multiple shards (in my case my home shard that's quiet as death and the other shard with much more actions going on e.g PvP) but only have 1 account.

Judging by the subscribers UO has in its current state. UO has much more land availiable for housing. I am a 9yr vet and trust me Ive been thru a lot. It used to be like winning the lottery if you can place a large brick house, and many vet players had experienced not being able to place a small 7x7 house back in the days.

I dont mind if EA pull that "2nd house token" crap that make us pay for it. But paying for a 2nd account just so I can have another house on another shard is simply too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you look at ways to maximize subscriptions, 1 is to make 1 house per account. I got caught in that and now dropped accounts.

I am at the point now where another house might lead me to open another account. Not drop one because I can have 2.

I dont need 7 players on every shard. I think its away to abuse gifting but what I like about the idea is a limit of 15 charactures that I can develop and take to any shard for free.

I can take my characture without stuff to any shard and develop them. If I want 15 on atlantic, I can. If I want to move, I can.

Its just a different way to look at things.

I login...
Instead of selecting a shard.
I get my 15 charactures. I can take them where I want. I can easily see who is who.

I dont have to log into to shards to activate a player within 30 days to get a reward.


Or maybe just give us a characture screen. Where I can get a full view of my charactures on all shards.

Just ideas to knock around.

 

[Dean478]

No bloody way. It's bad enough that 5+ can encourage some very anti-social gameplay, imagine 15. The focus of this game is shifting to property now.. getting overboard.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

No bloody way. It's bad enough that 5+ can encourage some very anti-social gameplay, imagine 15. The focus of this game is shifting to property now.. getting overboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

5+ used to matter to me.
With soulstones. It really doesnt matter anymore.
I know players with every skill stoned.

 

[Dean478]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

No bloody way. It's bad enough that 5+ can encourage some very anti-social gameplay, imagine 15. The focus of this game is shifting to property now.. getting overboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

5+ used to matter to me.
With soulstones. It really doesnt matter anymore.
I know players with every skill stoned.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yep. It shows the inconsistent design goals of the team. The way this game has been handed from team to team shows in its evolution.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Yep. It shows the inconsistent design goals of the team. The way this game has been handed from team to team shows in it's evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't confuse team with producers. The team makes the changes but the producers mandate them.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Yep. It shows the inconsistent design goals of the team. The way this game has been handed from team to team shows in it's evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't confuse team with producers. The team makes the changes but the producers mandate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.
Im just trying to start a discussion. Polishing is really needed. Like your saying, its sort of like car parts from 10 different cars to make 1. Yeah its a car but its really klunky and ugly in places. Why was that done?

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Why was that done?

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrugs*

Too many people making decision for the game that don't play it would be my guess.

 

[Dean478]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Why was that done?

[/ QUOTE ]
*shrugs*

Too many people making decision for the game that don't play it would be my guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or even better, never tried an Ultima game before.

Samurai, elves? Need I go on?

And fair enough I correct myself, bad producers.

 

[Tom_Builder]

I think it's fine like it is now, but I would also like to see a token for a 2nd house. I play 2 shards and on one I live out of my bank box.

 

[Guest]

I posted an idea a long long time ago for a 2nd house, on a designated 2nd shard, of limited size, non-transferable and needing to be manually refreshed.

There are small, empty spots on even the busy shards. The larger spots should belong to those who play a particular shard as their 'main' shard of course.

 

[ken01]

I too would play more on diff shards if didnt hafta live outa my bankbox there . I wouldnt mind seeing you pick your main shard and can have any house size you want . But on other shards you can only build a 7by 7 and maybe just on anywhere from 1-5 shards. Another thing they could do is add something like a tent you could by 1 per shard basically operating like a small house with fairly low storage. You could have several predisigned tents like a miners tent with some old boots and broken picks in corner a small cot and a few footlockers for storage a small forge an anvil.also rangers tent ,tailers tent you get the idea. They could carefullyset the parameters where you could place it so as not to clutter things too much maybe have to be so far apart .Or restrict to those big open areas of malas nothing spawns there to bring people in anyway.

 

[Dean478]

The problem is that it's unfair to those who consider this "bank box" shard of yours as THEIR MAIN shard.

I'd be pissed if someone came to Oceania with a 3rd character and could get a house for the odd days they play here. Oceania isn't the best example but you get the point.

 

[ken01]

That is why I said severely restrict where you could place on shards not your main. Do not use the existing house holding plots or allow secondary shard housing to overly clutter or uglify the shard that you are in effect a guest on. There is a huge area in malas with absolutly nothing other than an occasional skittering hopper . also and again with tight restrictions to how close and how many to avoid ruining the landscape there are many areas too small for existing housing around the world. I have seen a number of posts from people on under populated shards wishing for others to create a few chars on their shard and tho I cant control what anyone else does I will try to be a good guest on any shard I visit.