Little confused here...

[Quilnn]

Never knew why the shards weren't put back together... would be alot better if uo was one giant realm with miles of land and water.... instead of 28 shards (TC included).

-Wouldn't the gameplay and interaction be more intense instead of low populated shards and medium populated shards interfering?

-Wouldn't it be easier to manage all the files and info if they're all based on one shard (7 CHARACTERS MAX) that way extra characters made by trial accounts won't overload the system databases, causing them to reset, when tons of characters from mutiple shards are created?

- Wouldn't a single shard allow UO to generate more lands and areas for exploration and discovering when new expansions come out?

- Wouldn't it be cheaper and smaller in size when only one shard needed the upgrade instead of all 28 shards upgraded in the same process?

- Wouldn't it be easier to test and debug a single shard that is infected with exploits instead of debugging all shards and watching them 24/7?

- Wouldn't a single shard save more money instead of hiring 56 developers to keep watch over all 28 shards?

- Lag may be a problem (Trust me, I thought of this ) But wouldn't there be an alternative to decreasing ping such as connecting places around the world? (EA is a big company, I'm sure this improvement may help other games they have developed.)

- An option for flagging? (Example: Turning on will allow other players to attack you EXCEPT in guardzones, similar to the Felucca facet, turning off will not allow players to attack you.) This will allow either the Trammel or Felucca facet be demolished and save some space for another facet to be created.

OPINIONS ARE WELCOMED. (not intended to insult anybody or anyone, just hoping the UO can be united with little problems... 28 shards was an overestimate seeing how many players currently play.)

 

[Aran]

No, it wouldn't be better, and to change it 13 years in would result in nothing but pissed off players, for good reason.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

No, it wouldn't be better, and to change it 13 years in would result in nothing but pissed off players, for good reason.

Thank you Aran ... saved me a lot of typing

Never knew why the shards weren't put back together...

coulda asked and ... could probably figure out Why >the shards< were built separately ...
same reason there are different rooms in/and houses (see: Longhouses)

-Wouldn't the gameplay and interaction be more intense instead of low populated shards and medium populated shards interfering?

low/medium DO NOT interfere in anyway ... learn the game

-Wouldn't it be easier to manage all the files and info if they're all based on one shard (7 CHARACTERS MAX) that way extra characters made by trial accounts won't overload the system databases, causing them to reset, when tons of characters from mutiple shards are created?

never been an "overload" ... again: learn the game

- Wouldn't a single shard allow UO to generate more lands and areas for exploration and discovering when new expansions come out?

No ... each shard is UNIQUE and DIFFERENT from each other ... similarities, sure ... but the "one shard" idea .... would be like the difference between
moving to the other side of the one town
vs
Moving to a different state/country/town ...nes pas?

- Wouldn't it be cheaper and smaller in size when only one shard needed the upgrade instead of all 28 shards upgraded in the same process?

No, learn to think it through ... one shard crashes, party on another ... The One Shard crashes .... see "facebook" ...

- Wouldn't it be easier to test and debug a single shard that is infected with exploits instead of debugging all shards and watching them 24/7?

No, again; LTG

- Wouldn't a single shard save more money instead of hiring 56 developers to keep watch over all 28 shards?

LTG (what on earth are you talking about? >56 developers<?????????? )

- Lag may be a problem (Trust me, I thought of this ) But wouldn't there be an alternative to decreasing ping such as connecting places around the world? (EA is a big company, I'm sure this improvement may help other games they have developed.)

MAYBE? Lrn2internets

- An option for flagging? (Example: Turning on will allow other players to attack you EXCEPT in guardzones, similar to the Felucca facet, turning off will not allow players to attack you.) This will allow either the Trammel or Felucca facet be demolished and save some space for another facet to be created.

Exists(flagging) ... the "flags" are called >moongates< ... LTG

OPINIONS ARE WELCOMED. (not intended to insult anybody or anyone, just hoping the UO can be united with little problems... 28 shards was an overestimate seeing how many players currently play.)

what shard do you play?

 

[Viquire]

I prefer to choose which set of characters I log in and their locations, thank you.

 

[Babble]

Newer games which are designed for it will go with the one shard system. When UO was made it was not possible and even now too many people on a subserver crash the servers.

The database is huge, but then hd space is cheap .

Developers who plan well don't have problems updating hundreds of shards (WOW). And developers don't 'watch' shards, is just no one else is hired to do it and to report to the developers.

UO shards are pretty cheap to run, though a one shard game like EVE has its own dynamic and is hopefully how modern games will be.

The developers pre Trammel were against a PvP switch, hence we got Trammel. No idea what developers these days think about it, though with Trammel and guildwarring I see no reason to implement it. And you cannot go back deleting Trammel or Fel.

If you are bored and want to propose maps to EA feel free to use mapmaking programs and design them.