PvP : Why not allow LIMITED transfer only between Siege and Mugen ?

[popps]

They both have the same ruleset and they both are for PvPers exclusively.

Why not then allow, ONLY BETWEEN THESE 2 shards the transfers ?

It could perhaps help revive PvP on both of them with raids and such.
Veteran players, could then also pick their Shard Shields for Siege/Mugen transfers.
Of course all other transfers would still be blocked.

Just an idea.....

 

[Tjalle]

A dev said a few years back to us Siege players that since Siege is coded differently than other shards, the code makes transfers to and from nearly impossible so that´s a no go.

 

[popps]

A dev said a few years back to us Siege players that since Siege is coded differently than other shards, the code makes transfers to and from nearly impossible so that´s a no go.

I thought Mugen was coded LIKE Siege (same ruleset and it also allows only 1 character...), that's why I thought that ONLY between these 2 shards transfers could be unblocked.....

 

[Tazar]

While Mugen is similar to Siege - it is not quite the same. Mugen actually has a trammel for one thing. Even so - Siege is an Island and transfers to or from it is not possible according to many past developer statements.

 

[Poo]

i dont know if you have ever been to Mugen but its dead dead DEAD!
i made a mage there a while back and didnt see anyone..... EVER!

 

[Lady Raja]

Hellos Poo! Mugen can be quite active depending on the time you play. I love me some Siege Perilous, but when I want a change of pace, I hop on over to Mugen. Siege Perilous and Mugen are the only two shards I log onto... Prodo shards are just for shard/holiday trading for me...

:mylittlepony:Thanks!

 

[claudia-fjp]

Mugen is so empty I use it to test castle placements. At Brit X-roads even. Open spots to place half a dozen there alone... That and the whole "servers being located on different continents" thing.

 

[Rumpy]

i dont know if you have ever been to Mugen but its dead dead DEAD!
i made a mage there a while back and didnt see anyone..... EVER!

Your actually wrong. They have a bigger player base then Siege does. I was on there over the weekend and joined a guild. Theres atleast 15 active members in the guild and there was 12 people at Safe Haven bank just hanging out at 1 point. I saw more people running around on mugen then I ever do on Siege. Its just the fact they are 13-14 hour time difference and they also do not use General Chat. Do not base a shards population off of the fact no one uses General Chat.

 

[claudia-fjp]

Your actually wrong. They have a bigger player base then Siege does. I was on there over the weekend and joined a guild. Theres atleast 15 active members in the guild and there was 12 people at Safe Haven bank just hanging out at 1 point. I saw more people running around on mugen then I ever do on Siege. Its just the fact they are 13-14 hour time difference and they also do not use General Chat. Do not base a shards population off of the fact no one uses General Chat.

Right base it on housing density. Which points to it being pretty dismal. Arirang is another one that is pretty low too. If Mugen is more populated than Siege then that REALLY doesn't bode well for Seige.

A rough guide for server populations:
Empty Castle spots (Mugen)
Only empty Keep spots all castles taken (Napa)
Only empty 18 x 18 Spots all Keep and Castle Spot taken (Pacific)
Most housing of max storage size taken (Atlantic)

 

[Rumpy]

Right base it on housing density. Which points to it being pretty dismal. Arirang is another one that is pretty low too. If Mugen is more populated than Siege then that REALLY doesn't bode well for Seige.

A rough guide for server populations:
Empty Castle spots (Mugen)
Only empty Keep spots all castles taken (Napa)
Only empty 18 x 18 Spots all Keep and Castle Spot taken (Pacific)
Most housing of max storage size taken (Atlantic)

If there are Castle Spots on Mugen, I'd go place one just to say I have one. The thing is too, they have a whole facet more then Siege. I am not surprised. Double The New Mag plots and all. Castles aren't that big of a deal to everyone. Siege has empty keep spots all over and Malas is damn near empty. We have so many luna spots open, most of Mugen is still filled.

 

[Lady Raja]

You can't base a shard's population by the number of plots placed... I choose not to have a castle on Siege because I prefer the plot I have right now. Yeah it is only a 14x16, I think... I prefer it over a castle because it is my own private island. If it was not for my current spot, I would have kept my old spot on Serpent's Hold, talk about a tiny house... Hehe...

Speaking of castle spots on Napa, the two castles East of Vesper on Fel side is my brother's. He has not logged onto UO for about four years now. He just keeps his five accounts active for the heck of it... So placed houses on a shard does not mean much...

:mylittlepony: Thanks!

P.S.
I play Mugen too, but I do not own a house there... I am sure there is quite a few people there that play there and have a house on another shard...

P.P.S.
There are so many houses on Siege that the owners do not even play here anymore.

 

[Viper09]

You can't base a shard's population by the number of plots placed... I choose not to have a castle on Siege because I prefer the plot I have right now. Yeah it is only a 14x16, I think... I prefer it over a castle because it is my own private island. If it was not for my current spot, I would have kept my old spot on Serpent's Hold, talk about a tiny house... Hehe...

Speaking of castle spots on Napa, the two castles East of Vesper on Fel side is my brother's. He has not logged onto UO for about four years now. He just keeps his five accounts active for the heck of it... So placed houses on a shard does not mean much...

:mylittlepony: Thanks!

P.S.
I play Mugen too, but I do not own a house there... I am sure there is quite a few people there that play there and have a house on another shard...

P.P.S.
There are so many houses on Siege that the owners do not even play here anymore.

Well said. Housing for me is more about the balance between size and location. My favorite spot of all time was right outside moonglow. Following the road south towards the moongate; right where it ends and splits into an E-W path. It fits a decently wide 3-story house. Plus, I love customizing.

 

[claudia-fjp]

Why is it when I state how low the population is on a server people bend over backwards to deny it? Yes, I know you are afraid of the population getting too low they close servers, they stated they wouldn't though so don't worry. Yes, you and many others may choose to live in a smaller house or a customizable one or one in a specific location. However taken as a WHOLE a server with dozens of open castle spots and who knows how many open keep spots has an extremely low population compared to one with every one of those spots taken.


I played Siege before AoS. Houses covered it to the point when I left the largest I had was 18x18. If I came back today I'd have at least a keep placed in under 5 minutes. I played Napa when Trammel came out placing a large tower that sold for $300 when I left for Siege. Now it's a big open snowfield. I've been doing houses in UO for over a decade. To say that housing density isn't an indicator of population is just silly. On Pacific I've had runes to every keep and castle for years. Every year the number grows as houses get consolidated when space opens up due to declining population. On Atlantic there are much fewer Keeps and Castles, why? Because those spot are taken up by multiple houses due to the large population. Space is at a premium there.

As for abandoned and bugged houses they are on every server. People were allowed to place free houses with closed accounts that would never decay for YEARS. Add to that all the other bugs and populations are even less than housing would lead you to believe.

 

[Poo]

Your actually wrong. They have a bigger player base then Siege does. I was on there over the weekend and joined a guild. Theres atleast 15 active members in the guild and there was 12 people at Safe Haven bank just hanging out at 1 point. I saw more people running around on mugen then I ever do on Siege. Its just the fact they are 13-14 hour time difference and they also do not use General Chat. Do not base a shards population off of the fact no one uses General Chat.

i dont know man.
i made a 7xGM mage there and i didnt see anyone for the week i was making my dude.
and i was in haven and luna the entire time.
and not just the same time frame, i was all over the map due to my work.
think i saw one other fella one time in the entire week and he ran when i came on screen.

 

[Mitzlplik_LS]

They both have the same ruleset and they both are for PvPers exclusively.

Why not then allow, ONLY BETWEEN THESE 2 shards the transfers ?

It could perhaps help revive PvP on both of them with raids and such.
Veteran players, could then also pick their Shard Shields for Siege/Mugen transfers.
Of course all other transfers would still be blocked.

Just an idea.....

That part can not be more wrong and misleading. I am no pvp`r but I soooo miss the days of having to watch your back. The extra thrill ya get when ya make it out of a dungeon and stash that shiney new whatever. Knowing someone could pop in and try to leave you for dead at anytime...... thats what makes PVM alot more exciting for me. I know I`m not alone either since SP has the best guild I`ve ever had the pleasure of being in, GIL. If you want ppl and activities,there is always ppl playing and always ppl in vent. I never saw the empty server ppl talk about because of a great guild. A whole lot more PVM goes on over there than one would think.

On topic..... I think SP should be 1. allowed naked (aside from vet rewards) transfers to and from any shard.... and 2. The ability to place a 2nd house on same account on SP. Maybe with an accelerated decay rate or something. No fun living out of a bank.

 

[Lady Raja]

Why is it when I state how low the population is on a server people bend over backwards to deny it? Yes, I know you are afraid of the population getting too low they close servers, they stated they wouldn't though so don't worry. Yes, you and many others may choose to live in a smaller house or a customizable one or one in a specific location. However taken as a WHOLE a server with dozens of open castle spots and who knows how many open keep spots has an extremely low population compared to one with every one of those spots taken.


I played Siege before AoS. Houses covered it to the point when I left the largest I had was 18x18. If I came back today I'd have at least a keep placed in under 5 minutes. I played Napa when Trammel came out placing a large tower that sold for $300 when I left for Siege. Now it's a big open snowfield. I've been doing houses in UO for over a decade. To say that housing density isn't an indicator of population is just silly. On Pacific I've had runes to every keep and castle for years. Every year the number grows as houses get consolidated when space opens up due to declining population. On Atlantic there are much fewer Keeps and Castles, why? Because those spot are taken up by multiple houses due to the large population. Space is at a premium there.

As for abandoned and bugged houses they are on every server. People were allowed to place free houses with closed accounts that would never decay for YEARS. Add to that all the other bugs and populations are even less than housing would lead you to believe.

Hmm...

*reads her own post*

Yeps... I did not deny anything about low population... Who said anything about being afraid of low population shards being shut down? It's just a game... If they shut down Siege Perilous and/or Mugen, I would either quit or play another shard, no biggie... Besides, I only stated that you can't base a shard's population on houses placed on a shard. Honestly, I don't care about population on a shard being low or high... I only play Siege Perilous and Mugen because I like the ruleset of the two shards and the community of the two shards, in my own opinion, are more suited for my play style.

:mylittlepony: Thanks!

P.S.
With shard transferring these days, it is hard to base a population of a shard on merely placed houses... Even though I only have one account, there are many with multiple accounts that has a house or two on a couple, even several shards. There is a lot of factors to be taken into consideration about a shards population...

P.P.S.
Please note I am not defending the fact that there is low population on any shard... I think we all know that Atlantic is the Brit Bank of the shards these days...

 

[Rumpy]

For the record. Siege is not a PvP Shard.

 

[claudia-fjp]

For the record. Siege is not a PvP Shard.

For the record. It used to be. Even the Role Players were PVPers back in the day on Siege. Entire guilds of em. These days though you are right. It turned into the do anything to avoid PVP Shard where everyone stealths around.

Raja: Notice your saying housing isn't an indication of population is the very thing I have issue with. It is. A very good one. If it wasn't and a majority of people were playing on 1 server but had a house on another you'd think Atlantic wouldn't be so full of houses and the servers begging for players wouldn't be so empty.

 

[TheDrAJ]

Please no transfers to or from Siege. Our ecconomy is such that things still have value. If you want Siege to be like Great Lakes or atlantic etc then bring insurance and all the other things pkers hate.

I do believe it might be in the best interest of all shards (including Siege) to open up all lands for keeps and castles.

 

[Petra Fyde]

The biggest flaw with this idea is the players of Siege and Mugen don't want to transer to Siege and Mugen.

There's little merit in asking for something no one wants.