In the case of a server being closed...

[SchezwanBeefy]

During a recent thread of mine, we discussed what could possibly revive UO. The topic of consolidating servers was brought up.
Many people are opposed to the situation for several reasons, but imagine the following:

You are on a server that has a low populace. (ex. Pacific)
The other server has a medium sized populace. (ex. Napa Valley)

All your items can be placed in some sort of secure container to be moved (infinite number, 999,999 or something).
Houses will be ranked for compensation based on location and the size. For example:
Castles - Tier one
Keeps - Tier two
16x16 and higher - Tier three

Luna: Tier one
Non spawn Trammel houses/Zento: Tier two
Malas/Tokuno/Felucca: Tier three
Swamps: Tier Four

If a server had to be shut down but all your items would remain in the game and be transferred safely, would you make the transfer to another shard, or would you quit entirely?

 

[Cogniac]

For some servers, this isn't even the real issue. Look at what's happening to Oceania right now. If you were to try to consolidate a server like Oceania into any server that is not Oceania (I.e. is not located in Australia/New Zealand) Oceanians can no longer play because they are so far away from the rest of the planet--and thus the rest of the shards--that the latency and lag become unbearable. Items, characters, and houses or not, they just straight up would no longer be able to play the game.

(Disclaimer: My main shard is Atlantic, which is UO's most populous shard. This means that it would be the last shard standing if every other shard was consolidated. So I voted "Other.")

 

[SchezwanBeefy]

The question is IF THIS HAPPENED, WOULD YOU DO IT?

Don't worry about the outside variables. I'm sure they would consider server locations (as I have done) in the consolidation process.

 

[Lord Nabin]

Frankly I think the items would not be the issue. House placement on the shard you lived on vs where you might end up is the issue

 

[a slave girl]

If they start merging servers that means the end is near.

 

[Lord Nabin]

If they start merging servers that means the end is near.

Not till the end of 2012 we all have plenty of time.

Where is my friend the Bear

 

[Deaol]

Meh i voted move (if it came down to that)... The people that would be the most upset are those that own prime real estate (luna/castles/special other locales/player towns..)

Also there is a ton of history I am sure on many now low populated shards that would be lost.. example.. player memorials.. old standing houses/event houses etc etc.. so would these be moved as well? I doubt it..

So could everything be consolidated into one or two shards... example.. one West.. one East? .. maybe.. but highly doubtful.

If you think the shard you play on is dead.. move.. how hard is that?..

 

[Tanivar]

I would go with the move to another shard provided my crafting materials and gear came with me. I've moved my house before. All I would insist on is that I have a lot provided to place a similar size house (a large Tower) in a similar location. Something like a 12 x 14 in a wooded area, not a housing subdivision, would do.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I would go with the move to another shard provided my crafting materials and gear came with me. I've moved my house before. All I would insist on is that I have a lot provided to place a similar size house (a large Tower) in a similar location. Something like a 12 x 14 in a wooded area, not a housing subdivision, would do.

Basically agree with this post. If they planned it right, and made sure there would be enough housing spots for everyone I have no issue with moving, assuming they at least put all my stuff in a special one time bank, or something...or if they hand moved all the houses themselves(time consuming and unlikely, but meh still an option to how to handle it.)

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

If they start merging servers that means the end is near.

That thought proccess makes no sense at all. Most successful games today have done server mitigation, upgrades to servers allows for them to be merged, or perhaps two particular servers are played less than others and thus have room to be merged. There has also been server splits, this can work both ways but currently a merger is not a bad idea for the continuation of this game.

Meh i voted move (if it came down to that)... The people that would be the most upset are those that own prime real estate (luna/castles/special other locales/player towns..)

Also there is a ton of history I am sure on many now low populated shards that would be lost.. example.. player memorials.. old standing houses/event houses etc etc.. so would these be moved as well? I doubt it..

So could everything be consolidated into one or two shards... example.. one West.. one East? .. maybe.. but highly doubtful.

If you think the shard you play on is dead.. move.. how hard is that?..

The issue is not who thinks the shard is dead or not, it is having to many shards to pick from in the list when starting to play, or returning to the game. Most people will pick the shard they played before only to find it is dead, and thus assume all shards are that way (If they check 2 or three they could still come to this conclusion since most shards have a low population).

 

[Tina Small]

Like several other people I know, I have fully developed characters on the same account on multiple shards.

Since your example didn't say we'd get more character slots, that would mean many characters would be sacrificed, along with: every power and stat scroll they ever used; every "entitlement" type of quest they ever finished; every crafting recipe ever learned; all the loyalty points they had piled up; all the points they had accumulated in the community collections; all faction points they had accrued; any special titles they may have earned; and any special pets they had that couldn't be traded in round-about-fashion to the remaining characters.

Also, any herald NPCs or character-bound bless deads the deleted characters owned would become useless. Things like guild officer status and house co-ownership (if you were lucky enough to have a house on the shard that survived) could also be terribly messed up with the loss of the "redundant" characters.

Soul stones could obviously hold skills, if I had the money and the vet rewards to acquire enough of them, but permanently losing all those other aspects of the deleted characters and dealing with other aspects of their loss would probably aggravate me sufficiently to really walk away for good.

Post cross-reference in case you don't believe me: http://vboards.stratics.com/1861699-post23.html. (Post by Poo from 11/20/2010.)

 

[Hunters' Moon]

I do not think Mythic would start shutting down shards one by one.They would just end it with one flip of the switch. Perhaps Cal Crowner or a Mythic Rep would post here stating that UO has so-and-so time left before the servers are turned off.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

OTHER

http://vboards.stratics.com/1895682-post105.html

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Like several other people I know, I have fully developed characters on the same account on multiple shards.

Since your example didn't say we'd get more character slots, that would mean many characters would be sacrificed, along with: every power and stat scroll they ever used; every "entitlement" type of quest they ever finished; all the loyalty points they had piled up; all the points they had accumulated in the community collections; all faction points they had accrued; any special titles they may have earned; and any special pets they had that couldn't be traded in round-about-fashion to the remaining characters.

Also, any herald NPCs or character-bound bless deads the deleted characters owned would become useless. Things like guild officer status and house co-ownership (if you were lucky enough to have a house on the shard that survived) could also be terribly messed up with the loss of the "redundant" characters.

Soul stones could obviously hold skills, if I had the money and the vet rewards to acquire enough of them, but permanently losing all those other aspects of the deleted characters and dealing with other aspects of their loss would probably aggravate me sufficiently to really walk away for good.

Post cross-reference in case you don't believe me: http://vboards.stratics.com/1861699-post23.html. (Post by Poo from 11/20/2010.)

So in short, slowly killing the game is better than trying to do something to up the games longevity? Granted there are some things you can not keep or replace, but over all most is replacable, aside from having 7 different guild entitlements on every server....You can still have the same over all affect by having 7 characters in 7 different guilds. Also the housing situation is somewhat moot as we are trying to figure out the best way to handle that particular situation. I to have characters on multiple shards, and I understand concerns...but "most" things can be compensated if planned right, I guess I am asking for a bit much considering the half-assed-ness we currently get.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

Re: OTHER

http://vboards.stratics.com/1895682-post105.html

Oceania's concern is that they lack any way to play decently. Not the same medium, you can not compare the two as we are not trying to go from a playable arena to a non-playable one (Such as what happened with Oceania) Hell look in most of the comments, a few of them have mentioned about having a guild but most of the complaints is that they have NO other shard to play on that is anywhere near their region, so again not a comparable situation.

 

[Tina Small]

I do not think Mythic would start shutting down shards one by one.They would just end it with one flip of the switch. Perhaps Cal Crowner or a Mythic Rep would post here stating that UO has so-and-so time left before the servers are turned off.

I believe that when EA shut down The Sims Online, they made the announcement around April and let everyone play for free until the end of July or August of the same year. Shortly before they announced the shut-down of that game, they had rolled out items that players could purchase with real dollars (e.g., you could buy in-game currency for real dollars). I remember reading some very angry posts made by people shortly after the cancellation announcement stating that they never got the in-game currency that they purchased right before the announcement and there seemed to be no plans to reimburse them either.

I didn't play TSO when it was shut down, but kind of checked on it periodically and definitely got the sense that its developers spent the last year of the game's life pushing the players to contribute their ideas and even player-designed artwork to EA in the name of "improving the game." I'm guessing all those ideas and the artwork ended up being dumped into other versions of The Sims and even other EA titles.

I've been skeptical for several years that EA has being using UO in a similar fashion to test or develop ideas for other games it owns. It's obvious they realize what a devoted/addicted group UO players are when they almost completely hand over the maintenance of game information and history to an unrelated and unpaid third party and barely a murmur of protest is heard.

I don't know what plans EA has for UO in the near future. But I'm very disturbed by the way they've recently handled service for the Oceania shard. I have no confidence at this point that shutting down or modifying service for any other server(s) in the game would be handled any better, at least from a customer's viewpoint.

 

[Black Spirit]

I was Playing on Oceania until the server was moved to the US.

So NO, I will close all my accounts if UO is not returned to Australia.

One can not play with excessive lag in this game and there are no other shards even practable to play on in any other region of the world.

Oceania will not be the first any only shard to be scrapped due to penny pinching.

I am waiting for one month to see if CAL is going to fix this before I deleate every thing on my 4 accounts that I have spent many years achiving and collecting.

Super Unhappy

May your shards be safe, ours was'nt.

 

[4th3ist]

Not saying any names, but I've noticed in a few threads a couple of the people here strongly disagreeing to consolidating don't even play anymore... Its great you keep paying, but why do you -really- care if you don't actually play? If you log in and say "What am I even wasting my time for?"

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I was Playing on Oceania until the server was moved to the US.

So NO, I will close all my accounts if UO is not returned to Australia.

That is not the issue in question. Of course Oceania would be untouched by this entire idea because of the fact that it has no relative shard to merge with. I feel for your emotions about moving it back to Australia, or at least close to there as to making the game playable, but again this could not affect you unless they found some magical way to make you ping better to the US.

 

[Lady Michelle]

Here is something they could do, and no one will lose anything.

merge shards where you have 2 tram 2 fel 2 temur 2 tokuno, and malas 2
The moongate gump would look like this
trammel 1
trammel 2
felucca 1
felucca 2
ter mur 1
ter mur 2
malas 1
malas 2
Ilshenar ( only 1 Ilshenar since no houses can be placed)

faucets marked with 2 would only be for housing, no towns no dungeons etc. these areas could be used for more housing, or even used for EM events.
Its not a perfect solution, but no one will lose their houses or stuff.
Remember its all about the players, and not about the game, because there would be no UO without us players.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

I don't know what plans EA has for UO in the near future. But I'm very disturbed by the way they've recently handled service for the Oceania shard. I have no confidence at this point that shutting down or modifying service for any other server(s) in the game would be handled any better, at least from a customer's viewpoint.

Perhaps I was wrong in the statement that EA/Mythic would not shut down servers one at a time in the sense that EA/Mythic has reduced services such as quality of GM support to moving the Oceana server location to State-side. Perhaps the bean-counters are hoping that UO players will get so fed up with how the game is being operated that they will close their accounts. This will be used (maybe) as a reason to finally pull the plug on UO.

Your example of how TSO sold new in-game items for rl cash a couple of months before the official shut down holds an eerie parallel to what is now seen in the UO gamecodes store. New abyssal hair dye,forged metal that grants 100% enhancement chance,and not to mention the new Brit Ship that can have house add-ons. All for RL cash.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

Here is something they could do, and no one will lose anything.

merge shards where you have 2 tram 2 fel 2 temur 2 tokuno, and malas 2
The moongate gump would look like this
trammel 1
trammel 2
felucca 1
felucca 2
ter mur 1
ter mur 2
malas 1
malas 2
Ilshenar ( only 1 Ilshenar since no houses can be placed)

faucets marked with 2 would only be for housing, no towns no dungeons etc. these areas could be used for more housing, or even used for EM events.
Its not a perfect solution, but no one will lose their houses or stuff.
Remember its all about the players, and not about the game, because there would be no UO without us players.

I think that would be a coding nightmare. Lets say I have a house fel side and attempt to recall there. Well,which felucca would I go to? Which 80 degrees 30'S 150 degrees 7'E would I end up?

 

[Tina Small]

Perhaps I was wrong in the statement that EA/Mythic would not shut down servers one at a time in the sense that EA/Mythic has reduced services such as quality of GM support to moving the Oceana server location to State-side. Perhaps the bean-counters are hoping that UO players will get so fed up with how the game is being operated that they will close their accounts. This will be used (maybe) as a reason to finally pull the plug on UO.

Your example of how TSO sold new in-game items for rl cash a couple of months before the official shut down holds an eerie parallel to what is now seen in the UO gamecodes store. New abyssal hair dye,forged metal that grants 100% enhancement chance,and not to mention the new Brit Ship that can have house add-ons. All for RL cash.

Who knows. For all we know, they plan to fold UO into another game.

Did you see the press release about EA joining forces with Funcom as a co-publisher of a new MMO to be called, "The Secret World"? The press release describes it as, "...a next-generation massively multiplayer online game for the PC platform, where players are given total freedom to create and progress their characters, unbound by the restrictions of classes and levels. Players will get the opportunity to join one of three secret societies and fight for power over important locations throughout our own world. Players will also journey through familiar places across the globe, such as Egypt, New England, London, New York, and Seoul and battle monsters of myth and legend." Press release is here: Funcom and EA to Co-Publish ‘The Secret World' MMO (NASDAQ:ERTS) and website is here: D A R K   D A Y S   A R E   C O M I N G.

 

[Hunters' Moon]

Who knows. For all we know, they plan to fold UO into another game.

Did you see the press release about EA joining forces with Funcom as a co-publisher of a new MMO to be called, "The Secret World"? The press release describes it as, "...a next-generation massively multiplayer online game for the PC platform, where players are given total freedom to create and progress their characters, unbound by the restrictions of classes and levels. Players will get the opportunity to join one of three secret societies and fight for power over important locations throughout our own world. Players will also journey through familiar places across the globe, such as Egypt, New England, London, New York, and Seoul and battle monsters of myth and legend." Press release is here: Funcom and EA to Co-Publish ‘The Secret World' MMO (NASDAQ:ERTS) and website is here: D A R K * D A Y S * A R E * C O M I N G.

Interesting read. So basicly EA takes the foundation of UO (sandbox) and puts it in modern times.With a type of faction system no less.I wonder if the UO team had any input for that game.

 

[Talula]

I would definitely consider quitting if Felucca houses were considered tier three for replacement value as in this proposal. Consider the ratio of PvP area housing to PvE area housing. Bias of the original poster is showing here.

 

[Lady Michelle]

Here is something they could do, and no one will lose anything.

merge shards where you have 2 tram 2 fel 2 temur 2 tokuno, and malas 2
The moongate gump would look like this
trammel 1
trammel 2
felucca 1
felucca 2
ter mur 1
ter mur 2
malas 1
malas 2
Ilshenar ( only 1 Ilshenar since no houses can be placed)

faucets marked with 2 would only be for housing, no towns no dungeons etc. these areas could be used for more housing, or even used for EM events.
Its not a perfect solution, but no one will lose their houses or stuff.
Remember its all about the players, and not about the game, because there would be no UO without us players.

I think that would be a coding nightmare. Lets say I have a house fel side and attempt to recall there. Well,which felucca would I go to? Which 80 degrees 30'S 150 degrees 7'E would I end up?

Well I did say its not a perfect solution, and your right it would be a coding nightmare. The faucets marked 2 can also have different names maybe instead of trammel 1 and 2. Maybe main trammel and tram for the 2 faucet. or the 2nd one has a different name all together.

 

[popps]

One of the main obstacles to merging servers, as I see it, is housing.

Housing has 2 problems, size of the plot and location.

Having a Castle in a nice water front location without annoying spawn is not the same when one has to end up in a swamp with a lot of annoying spawn nearby.....

If it really will ever be necessary to marge servers, which I hope does not happen, I think that before doing anything it will at least be necessary to forgo the plot size requirement as connected to the capacity.

That is, I will make an example, say that someone who has a Castle on the server being shut down will be forced to move to another shard, this player will need to be given at least the chance to get a smaller plot on the destination shard which will have the total capacity manually edited to be the same as the Castle.

Sure, a small house is definately not the same as a Castle, but at least capacity will not be touched.

Or, as an alternative, instead of messing with the capacity of houses allow those players who will forced to leave their server to go to another server to have a bank box that will have the same capacity of the house they lost plus on top of the regular bank box capacity, of course..... Naturally, to mimic a house this enlarged bank box should be capable to be shared by all character of that account on that shard....

Though, I can foresee problems in organizing so much storage in a physically limited bank box as compared to the space of a Castle, for example....

The very last option I can possibly think, is a new Booster adding more land to the destination server to host the new housing coming from the server being closed where the players would have priority to place from the size of their originary house. That is, for the first couple of weeks (lots of players do not play daily even though their accounts are active...) only Castle owners from the origin server will be able to place on the new land of the destination shard, then another couple of weeks for Keep owners and so forth. When all is said and done after like a month or 2 the other shard will be closed for good and the new shard will have the new lands hosting the transferring players.

Other ways to deal with the issue I do not see, I do not think that Game Masters can open up on the destination server hundreds if not thousand of housing slots now locked to allow more housing. I do not know others, but I would not enjoy playing on a server cluttered with houses all over the place, everywhere.......

 

[Petra Fyde]

I prefer not to cross my bridges till I come to them.

Upgrading all the server hardware doesn't seem like the prelude to removing any of them. I see no reason to depress myself - or anyone else, by worrying about the possibility.

Oceania we can't judge clearly because we don't know all the circumstances. We have no idea why the server needed to be moved.

 

[Petra Fyde]

I prefer not to cross my bridges till I come to them.

Upgrading all the server hardware doesn't seem like the prelude to removing any of them. I see no reason to depress myself - or anyone else, by worrying about the possibility.

Oceania we can't judge clearly because we don't know all the circumstances. We have no idea why the server needed to be moved.

 

[Poo]

i didnt have time to read the thread.

but im wondering what would happen to people like me who allready have all their characters developed on every shard.

are we just SOL?

and why is there allways people wanting to consolidate shards.
if ya wanna play a buisy shard, go to atl.
you wanna play a quiet shard go to LA or Origin.

i dont understand why i should be forced to play with you if i dont want too.
just so you have someone to play with?

i think the question is why is everyone leaving.
answer that and consolidation isnt even a issue.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

I would definitely consider quitting if Felucca houses were considered tier three for replacement value as in this proposal. Consider the ratio of PvP area housing to PvE area housing. Bias of the original poster is showing here.

I don't understand your complaint exactly? How is it being considered tier three for replacement value in this proposal? And what exactly is "PvP area housing" Yew? I will grant there is more "Trammel" than there is "fel" but I am not so sure there is any less space in fel than in trammel. Nothing I am going to try and prove right now. I see you would only "consider" quitting, which makes it not set in stone....Surely there is some kind of conclusive way to make this work.

I think that would be a coding nightmare. Lets say I have a house fel side and attempt to recall there. Well,which felucca would I go to? Which 80 degrees 30'S 150 degrees 7'E would I end up?

Actually...No coding nightmare at all, considering how the current code "should" work, and considering how easy it is for them to add new lands and never once do you end up at the wrong "80 degrees 30s 150 degrees 7'E" They would just be making a copy of the servers "Fel" but renaming it. Perhaps not even adding moongate there, meaning only travel to the housing area's would be player driven....(thinking about it, it may not be a great idea to not have moongate access but still not a big coding problem)

Other ways to deal with the issue I do not see, I do not think that Game Masters can open up on the destination server hundreds if not thousand of housing slots now locked to allow more housing. I do not know others, but I would not enjoy playing on a server cluttered with houses all over the place, everywhere.......

1 step = 1 degree, means 4x the amount of land than we currently have...

Also with that you could take many approaches, you could redraw the over land area's to have more housing spots (such as that a rock does not block your house plot...which is crazy anyway ) Also they could go in and hand move each house slightly so that when they expand the land the newly made land is a viable location for a new house, OR lets say they just merge shards by 2's (that is to say half the number of servers) they could expand the land as I just explained then take copies of each server and over lay them and move each over lapping house slighting in each directions until all houses fit.

I agree with some people about not wanting to live in housing complexes but the merger of 2 servers should mean no more than 2 houses should ever overlap each other (since a single plot can only hold 1 house...) Now the only question is, does the castle get to stay closer to its original placement, or do the smaller houses which over lap that castle get the right? I would say move the castle since it is less work...but just my opinion.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

i didnt have time to read the thread.

but im wondering what would happen to people like me who allready have all their characters developed on every shard.

are we just SOL?

and why is there allways people wanting to consolidate shards.
if ya wanna play a buisy shard, go to atl.
you wanna play a quiet shard go to LA or Origin.

i dont understand why i should be forced to play with you if i dont want too.
just so you have someone to play with?

i think the question is why is everyone leaving.
answer that and consolidation isnt even a issue.

I have no real answer...although you would only be losing half of those characters in theory...

As for the rest, even if you stop everyone leaving, it does not fully solve the problems....I still think the best option would be to remove half of the servers from the login menu for accounts created after x date. I guess they can remain on the transfer token option....(but I am not really for transfers as they are part of the problem to begin with, meh) That way new or returning players would not feel as if the game was dead, dying, or any other "lack of players" feeling that some get.

 

[Mapper]

If I was given a free character token for all my characters on my 3 accounts, and 3 new 18x18s on the new shard (doesn't even need to be in the same place) then I would move.

If any of those didn't happen, Then no. And compensation for my houses would be of no use to me.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

If I was given a free character token for all my characters on my 3 accounts, and 3 new 18x18s on the new shard (doesn't even need to be in the same place) then I would move.

If any of those didn't happen, Then no.

In this case you would not need any transfers as the characters would be transferred.

BUT I was just thinking about Poo's dilemma again and thought about this, Instead of merging the servers, they take two servers and put them on a new one, and "give" you another account (not one you pay for....) something like the one you have with an amended number perhaps, and then put the 7 other characters in that new account. Shouldn't be to hard for them....I would say lock the account so no new characters could be created though and if one is deleted no new character can be created to replace it. That would solve the "already developed characters" issue.

 

[ress me plz]

No, I would close my accounts.

 

[Morloch]

Here is something they could do, and no one will lose anything.

merge shards where you have 2 tram 2 fel 2 temur 2 tokuno, and malas 2
The moongate gump would look like this
trammel 1
trammel 2
felucca 1
felucca 2
ter mur 1
ter mur 2
malas 1
malas 2
Ilshenar ( only 1 Ilshenar since no houses can be placed)

faucets marked with 2 would only be for housing, no towns no dungeons etc. these areas could be used for more housing, or even used for EM events.
Its not a perfect solution, but no one will lose their houses or stuff.
Remember its all about the players, and not about the game, because there would be no UO without us players.

I think that would be a coding nightmare. Lets say I have a house fel side and attempt to recall there. Well,which felucca would I go to? Which 80 degrees 30'S 150 degrees 7'E would I end up?

Well I did say its not a perfect solution, and your right it would be a coding nightmare. The faucets marked 2 can also have different names maybe instead of trammel 1 and 2. Maybe main trammel and tram for the 2 faucet. or the 2nd one has a different name all together.

Well - they would have all the staff available with relevant knowledge, since that's exactly what they did with DAoC.
It was horrible at first though - lots of bugs, issues with vendors, issues with housing, unique names, etc.....

 

[Obsidian]

This is a hypotetical situation that is getting many hypothetical responses. I think we need to keep that in mind. There is no indication EA is doing anything to merge servers. Some people, like me, occassionally like to play on quieter servers. I would hate to see them go away to consolidate and become busy shards. No thanks.

As for the premise you suggest... I have 4 accounts for the sole purpose of holding 4 houses on different shards. 2 of my houses are Luna plots on smaller shards. 2 are 18x18 in Malas on large shards. If I lost those houses in Luna because the shards went away, I would close those 2 accounts.

-OBSIDIAN-

 

[Kael]

I'm sure accomodations could be made for those getting placed on another shard

Temp bank increase...perhaps even increased storage for smaller houses in previous unplaceable locations

People forget that community keeps players logging in and when your shard is dead you tend to forget to "play" the game

 

[old gypsy]

Who knows. For all we know, they plan to fold UO into another game.

Press release is here: Funcom and EA to Co-Publish ‘The Secret World' MMO (NASDAQ:ERTS) and website is here: D A R K * D A Y S * A R E * C O M I N G.

If I wanted a "modern" sandbox I'd have chosen Second Life. Shard merges wouldn't make me quit, but if UO closed and the above game was offered free to play, I wouldn't play it.

 

[Tina Small]

i didnt have time to read the thread.

but im wondering what would happen to people like me who allready have all their characters developed on every shard.

are we just SOL?

and why is there allways people wanting to consolidate shards.
if ya wanna play a buisy shard, go to atl.
you wanna play a quiet shard go to LA or Origin.

i dont understand why i should be forced to play with you if i dont want too.
just so you have someone to play with?

i think the question is why is everyone leaving.
answer that and consolidation isnt even a issue.

I have no real answer...although you would only be losing half of those characters in theory...

As for the rest, even if you stop everyone leaving, it does not fully solve the problems....I still think the best option would be to remove half of the servers from the login menu for accounts created after x date. I guess they can remain on the transfer token option....(but I am not really for transfers as they are part of the problem to begin with, meh) That way new or returning players would not feel as if the game was dead, dying, or any other "lack of players" feeling that some get.[/QUOTE]

As many times as shard consolidation has been mentioned, many times the suggestion is to make "regional" servers so you end up with something like this to replace UO's current 27 servers:

1. Siege/Mugen Replacement
2. East Coast US Replacement (formerly Atlantic, Catskills, Chesapeake)
3. Central US Replacement (formerly Great Lakes, Lake Superior, Legends)
4. West Coast US Replacement (formerly Baja, Lake Austin, Napa Valley, Oceania, Pacific, Sonoma)
5. European Replacement (formerly Drachenfels, Europa)
6. Japanese Replacement (formerly Asuka, Hokuto, Izumo, Mizuho, Sakura, Wakoku, Yamato)
7. Korean/Taiwanese Replacement (Arirang, Balhae, Formosa)
8. Origin

Under a scheme like this, someone who has built characters on nearly every shard would stand to lose considerably more than HALF of the work they had done (e.g., a 133 character loss if you go to 8 servers as opposed to a 91 character loss if you go to 13 servers and originally had 7 characters on each shard).

Note: I forgot to include crafting recipes as something else you'd lose if extra characters are deleted in a shard merger.

 

[Picus at the office]

The only "fair" way this could work is move everyone to one new server, clear all housing and allow a mad rush to place.

Every luna house is gone(mine included), every gate house is gone(mine included) and every other private house is gone(mine included). Promptly the day after I would quit due to the fact that I might be able to replace one of my dwellings but certainly not all.

 

[Aurelius]

Note: I forgot to include crafting recipes as something else you'd lose if extra characters are deleted in a shard merger.

And powerscrolls used to raise stat caps and skills caps, plus personally blessed items on the deleted characters.

 

[copycon]

Server consolidation is not possible due to the technical limitations involved. I think that is pretty obvious...

That said, I think that it would be possible to entice large numbers of the remaining players to consolidate their play time onto a single server by offering a "superior" experience and those who didn't would be more likely to leave due to further lack of player and staff interaction. At that point, the remaining (nearly empty) shards could be systematically removed without much negative impact and minimal collateral damage.

Not to be negative, but I think that is more feasible than the "mash everything together and hope for the best" approach that others are somehow convinced would work.

 

[Darkcat]

As I'm sure I won't get my max storage custom house in front of despise entrance fel on any other shard (and for houses like this every point/tier/wahtever solution is ridiculus, and so would be the same place on a second felucca without the dungeon existing), I would quit.
Simple, short, that's it.

But I see the problem of decreasing population, I'd just prefer another solution (f2p, doing advertisement again, anything).

 

[Magdalene]

Other...
Pending towards 2 - cancel. I only keep my accounts because of the houses and keep the houses because of the memories linked to those places for so many years. So trading an old tower I placed myself right behind my then BF's tower for a generic 18x18 somewhere on another shard is not an option. So, it would not really make me stop playing, it would just be the last straw.

 

[Beer_Cayse]

I voted close. I am currently on hiatus with accounts closed ... but this topic has come up lots over the years and I've thought it out. I would close the accounts were they active if they did this. I would simply speak with the wallet.

I've been UO-free for over 2 months now - not Stratics-free. Interestingly, I've had no problem filling in the evenings and weekends with things to do. But I watch (and wait) eagerly to see what Cal will come up with. I may well be back in a flash.

 

[BajaElladan]

I Play ONLY on Baja.

Were Baja to close, UNLESS all my Houses, contents, characters, stables, and bank contents were transferred to a new Shard of my Choice, ALL my accounts would be closed.

Hope this NEVER happens.

 

[Poo]

how do you compensate someone for the deletion of a fully developed, scrolled and equipt character?

the hours and monitary investment per character varies on what the template is.

but how would you even begin to calculate that?

when was the character developed?
how much where scrolls then?
how much did the item he has cost at the time he got them?

like ill admit that my characters are all pretty much the same.
i build the same 21 templates on every shard.

so for anyone to say "youll get 3 transfer tokens" dosnt do me any good.
my accounts are all aready full and developed.

so i gain nothing from this and infact i lose EVERYTHING.
i lose YEARS of playing, hunting, development and time.

how do you put a price on that?

i have a castle that is very dear to me.
ive had it for more years then probablly 90% of the people playing have even been playing.

why should i have to loose that because someone dosnt play nice with others and wants to force us all to play together?

hell, the castle i have sold on EBAY back in the day for over $2,000 USD right before i picked it up (and no i didnt pay that for it, i got it in trade for a Seer Blessed house) but how do you compinsate something to ME that is worth that much simply because i picked it up when it WAS worth that much.

there is so much logistical problems with shard consolidation that i can honestlly say i dont think it will EVER happen.
it is cheaper to purchase the hardware for a server every couple years and keep it running then it is to try to tackle this headache.

even legally, think of someone who has a rare library worth BILLIONS of gold.
you close down their shard and they cant possibly move all that, they get mad and presto the lawyers getting involved.
can'o worms best left alone.

and im sure that is exactlly what the high command of UO is thinking.

 

[copycon]

how do you compensate someone for the deletion of a fully developed, scrolled and equipt character?

the hours and monitary investment per character varies on what the template is.

but how would you even begin to calculate that?

when was the character developed?
how much where scrolls then?
how much did the item he has cost at the time he got them?

like ill admit that my characters are all pretty much the same.
i build the same 21 templates on every shard.

so for anyone to say "youll get 3 transfer tokens" dosnt do me any good.
my accounts are all aready full and developed.

so i gain nothing from this and infact i lose EVERYTHING.
i lose YEARS of playing, hunting, development and time.

how do you put a price on that?

i have a castle that is very dear to me.
ive had it for more years then probablly 90% of the people playing have even been playing.

why should i have to loose that because someone dosnt play nice with others and wants to force us all to play together?

hell, the castle i have sold on EBAY back in the day for over $2,000 USD right before i picked it up (and no i didnt pay that for it, i got it in trade for a Seer Blessed house) but how do you compinsate something to ME that is worth that much simply because i picked it up when it WAS worth that much.

there is so much logistical problems with shard consolidation that i can honestlly say i dont think it will EVER happen.
it is cheaper to purchase the hardware for a server every couple years and keep it running then it is to try to tackle this headache.

even legally, think of someone who has a rare library worth BILLIONS of gold.
you close down their shard and they cant possibly move all that, they get mad and presto the lawyers getting involved.
can'o worms best left alone.

and im sure that is exactlly what the high command of UO is thinking.

Unfortunately, UO is not a right. It is a privilege.

Either you or EA.com may terminate your Account at any time without further obligation to the other. Further, EA.com reserves the rights to terminate the Service at any time without further obligation to you. IF THE SERVICE OR YOUR ACCOUNT IS TERMINATED OR CANCELED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, YOU AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) YOU WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REFUND OR PRORATION OF ANY FEES OR UNUSED ACCESS TIME; (2) YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY CHARACTERS DEVELOPED OR ITEMS ACCUMULATED AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER, SELL OR ASSIGN ANY CHARACTERS OR ITEMS TO ANYONE ELSE; (3) YOU MAY NOT ACCESS THE SERVICE IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY REASON, INCLUDING VIA ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. IN THE EVENT THAT AN ACCOUNT IS TERMINATED, EA.COM MAY TERMINATE ANY AND ALL OTHER ACCOUNTS THAT SHARE THE MEMBER NAME, PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL ADDRESS, INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS OR CREDIT CARD NUMBER WITH THE TERMINATED ACCOUNT.

I don't like it any more than you or anyone else, but that is the truth. EA may decide to do anything within their legal right to do as the service provider and your time and money invested is meaningless and worthless from a legal standpoint.

 

[Ox AO]

Or they could just join the servers together with moongates.

Everyone keeps their buildings and run the game off of two or three real servers.