I was there for all of them...
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
The only ppl who can tell, proof positive what a shard's activity is, are the devs and people at Broadsword. I doubt they'd relay that information.
Whatever the state of Napa, the topic here is about the merger of shards. Let's keep it to that and also keep it civil.
Whatever the state of Napa, the topic here is about the merger of shards. Let's keep it to that and also keep it civil.
People that don't want to lose their houses and history.
Personally I'd give up the two houses I have right next to each other a few screens south of Fel Yew gate for the opportunity to play with more people, but I know most won't want to.
And you're right. On the off chance a new player does try UO in this day and age if they pick any shard other than Atlantic they probably won't see more than a handful of people.
Yes please.
USA .. EAST AND WEST. (maybe central)
EUROPE
JAP (maybe two)
Seige etc (special shards like origon)
But i for one am not attached to my house... I love it and have had it for years on atl .. But my home shard is dead and even though the history is there.. I have already let it go for a new start years ago.. Ill pass on it for a better west coast option.
If everyone got a move crate per char.. And had to choose a new server.. I dont see it being bad.
People don't wanna see there player towns vanish.. But why not rebuild.. And make them better then ever!! What great rpg !!
USA .. EAST AND WEST. (maybe central)
EUROPE
JAP (maybe two)
Seige etc (special shards like origon)
But i for one am not attached to my house... I love it and have had it for years on atl .. But my home shard is dead and even though the history is there.. I have already let it go for a new start years ago.. Ill pass on it for a better west coast option.
If everyone got a move crate per char.. And had to choose a new server.. I dont see it being bad.
People don't wanna see there player towns vanish.. But why not rebuild.. And make them better then ever!! What great rpg !!
If you and your friends from some "dead shard" that just got zapped out of existence want to start another player town on a much more crowded existing shard, how do you do that? Chances are good you won't be able to find houses that are close to each other. And if somehow you do pull that off, maybe by paying ridiculous amounts of gold or RL cash to other players/brokers to acquire their houses, your little town is going to be far too new and lack any kind of history to qualify to be recognized as a player-run town.
Even if we were told one day that everything we had in our houses is being put into limbo and on certain dates we'll all have a chance to place houses on some brand new shards, what do you think the chances are that guilds will be able to get everyone to all sign on at the same time and gather in the same place and SUCCESSFULLY grab spots next to each other? It's not like we're all young people with nothing else going on in our real lives to just be able to drop everything to play UO on a specific date and at a specific time, no matter how important or exciting a "land grab" might seem to some people.
WOW taking all the way back to WBB is great and it UO at its best then we enter the Age of $hit with Luna. please take us all back.
Last edited:
So lets say they did a shard merg and you come back to UO expecting your shard and all your toons to be there and WOW they are all gone and you expect that person to be happy and say oh UO merged shards so I will just pick a new shard and start over, I don't think so. It would be more like UO just deleted my toons STFU UO I am out of here.
So you can do this now and if what you said was even remotely true then that is what you would have already done. Please don't try and led us down a path that you have no intention of doing.
Yeah except I'm not paying for 14 character transfer tokens. Good try though.
Well as a returning player (account was always paid for just wasn't played) , if they opened up 2 new shards, one for west coast and one for east coast, I would move instantly -Edit- (Just to clarify I would hope EA/Broadsword would sponsor some sort of move event, and let us move free of charge one time to the new servers) -Edit-. I bet a lot of others would too /shrug. This would also solve your issue of people losing history, just don't shut down the old servers. The year isn't 2000 anymore its not like an extra shard has to == physical rack space. With could based services and even virtual machines ( esxi , hyper-v, etc..) spinning up two extra servers somewhere can't be some massive financial load. This would also be awesome for your new player experience as well, because as you can tell the majority of players realize that being a newplayer in 17 year old UO or even a returning player is a massive burden to catch up. If the servers didn't fill up from moves, you could easily recommend new players to start there, whenever you make over the newplayer experience and start selling UO on steam ( reading about this was the whole reason I started playing again...).
Just my opinion and observation - but the fact that you laid out those specific needs tells me that not only do you know that you should have re-started on a populated server, but you have friends that can xfer you all of the items you need within a 24 hour window without even batting an eye.
Last edited:
Ohh, look at all the people in Luna, was there an event or something?
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
That pic takes me back to what Brit Bank was like circa 2000.
It's no secret that even Atlantic isn't as populated as it was couple of years ago
If Atlantic was as empty as most shards, I would probably have quit UO already. Not because of Atlantic, but because of the lonelyness. Just as I couldn't bother to login to Siege after not seeing a player outside of a house for two full weeks playing it.
I enjoy a less populated rural feel shard which is why I am still on Chesapeake and Siege. I checked out Atlantic and didn't like the mob scene there. I shouldn't have to be crowded into a mob scene shard just so the fans of mob scenes are happier.
*shrugs* Broadsword dumps the shards together to make the mob scene fans happy, I'm no longer happy, and I go checking out other games. UO would no longer be fun to play.
A decrease in your shards population does not force you to do anything. You have options.
Your ridiculous and poorly thought out proposal on the other hand would force a lot of players to lose their home and a fair % of their belongings and uproot their entire existence.
And yet you have the colossal ignorance & audacity to say "So how is this fair to me?"
Imo the most selfish thing I have ever seen posted on these boards. And that is saying a lot.
100% correct.
The OP is quite obviously unhappy and/or bored with his current situation in UO and should simply take a break or just quit. That's the reality here. The real issue.
He talks tough about making hard choices and ripping off bandages. Seriously?
He should listen to his own advice and use it on himself.
But I guess he is maybe just too addicted to do the right thing so instead he wants to uproot a large % of players and diminish the overall player base so that he can cater to his personal play style.
What a swell guy. It's nice to know we have fellow players looking out for us like this.
Shard mergers are a bad idea. Housing and shard history are among the reasons, but there's also this: As it stands currently, if a player prefers a larger shard, there are many options of how to move to one. Whereas, if one prefers a smaller shard, and/or prefers where he or she is at the moment, right now, all one has to do is stay put. Unless shards are merged, in which case the first person's options are forced upon them.
And that alienates more customers than it would please. How can we tell this? By the fact that the less-populated shards still exist, and still are played, at all.
If you like larger shards, exercise your options. Atlantic of course is the biggest shard, and note the complaints there of lag, crashes, and reverts. An excellent prediction of the future should shard mergers ever occur.
Instead, however, folks choose to attempt to force their choices upon the rest of the players, who by and large no longer read Stratics as far as I can tell (or read and don't post). Which, given the tone of the pro-shard merger crowd, really is their ultimate point: Part of the long UO tradition of enforcing their playstyles upon you, and then insulting you on the boards when you complain about it.
If you prefer larger shards, isn't it more productive to move shard, using the several means available to you now, rather than to attempt to enforce your preferences on the rest of us? Unless of course, that's your real point.
-Galen's player
And that alienates more customers than it would please. How can we tell this? By the fact that the less-populated shards still exist, and still are played, at all.
If you like larger shards, exercise your options. Atlantic of course is the biggest shard, and note the complaints there of lag, crashes, and reverts. An excellent prediction of the future should shard mergers ever occur.
Instead, however, folks choose to attempt to force their choices upon the rest of the players, who by and large no longer read Stratics as far as I can tell (or read and don't post). Which, given the tone of the pro-shard merger crowd, really is their ultimate point: Part of the long UO tradition of enforcing their playstyles upon you, and then insulting you on the boards when you complain about it.
If you prefer larger shards, isn't it more productive to move shard, using the several means available to you now, rather than to attempt to enforce your preferences on the rest of us? Unless of course, that's your real point.
-Galen's player
wrong. because there arent ANY shards right now with high population. Even atlantic isnt exactly full. many open house plots. luna sometimes only has 3 people at the bank. i wouldnt call that high population at all. Currently there is no option if a player wants a truely active shard. Even Pacific which was "high pop" enough to have 2 EMs recently lost that status. (hopefully im wrong and the 1 EM status is just temporary but i doubt thats the case) Chessy, which was also 2 EM "high pop" status is lower pop now than some shards with 1 EM. Were talking about losses over the last 6 months, not the last 6 years.
Is shard mergers a perfect idea? absolutely not. but popultion has reached such a low point that may not be sustainable anymore. people playing an MMO expect to see other players. when they dont, they stop playing that game.
in my opinion going free to play is a much better option to increase number of players per shard rather than simply reducing the number of shards, but i dont blame players at all for discussing all options.
Last edited:
We do see other people in numbers we like on the lesser populated shards, why we play them. We're into more rural lifestyles like a medieval world would be, not a crowded metropolis like some want.
If we wanted a more crowded world we'd move to Atlantic. Since we haven't, those of us on the less populated shards must be happy where we are at. We sure wouldn't have stayed where we are at if we were not happy. *tosses a clue your way*
The only solution I can see is to open a new shard. Too many people would freak about losing their precious housing spot. I would love to see it that you could transfer on but not off the shard. Hell, even make it so that you can't even bring items with you. Create a rush for players to farm for loots and place homes in prime spots. Meaningful farming or spawning tends to get people logging in and playing. Not to bring free shards into the conversation, but I have seen how the effects of a new shard has on people. Big rushes, lots of people playing, making guilds and alliances, creating player run towns and villages.
Then spoil this new shard for a bit, have EM's run a series of on going small events, a town invasion or shard champ spawn marathon. People stay and play to get established and maybe restore some lustre to the game.
Everyone pay's for accounts. But Broadsword needs to look into maximizing the most they can from limited resources. So they need to start focusing their EM events on the busiest shards. Everyone can participate if they want...but these events will only take place on the top four or five shards (population wise). Then more frequent events and on going story lines. The game isn't increasing in membership...so they need to focus on keeping the most players happy and entertained and slowly stop the bleeding if they can.
Then spoil this new shard for a bit, have EM's run a series of on going small events, a town invasion or shard champ spawn marathon. People stay and play to get established and maybe restore some lustre to the game.
Everyone pay's for accounts. But Broadsword needs to look into maximizing the most they can from limited resources. So they need to start focusing their EM events on the busiest shards. Everyone can participate if they want...but these events will only take place on the top four or five shards (population wise). Then more frequent events and on going story lines. The game isn't increasing in membership...so they need to focus on keeping the most players happy and entertained and slowly stop the bleeding if they can.
i can go hunting on Atlantic for 2 hours and not see a single person. if thats the most populated shard, id hate to think of what playing on a "low pop" shard must be like.
So explain how the revenue will be generated to pay the bills. Remember it needs to at least be the equivalent of (Current active accounts # x subscription cost $). In other words 15$ for every account every month....that is a tall task and a totally different revenue model and with such a small staff smh I just don't see it. But, lets hear your ideas?
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
Mob scene? Give me a break. Rarely, if ever, is there a 'mob scene', even on Atlantic. I guess you haven't been around that shard much lately.
'Rural feel'? Sorry... that's not what UO was ever meant to be, nor should it be. It wasn't meant to feel like 1930's Kansas where your level of interaction with other players is 'low to none'. Creating a sense of community is only way we can get returning players and new players to stick in game. However, that's simply not possible on 'rural', aka 'DEAD' shards.
General comment:
Quite frankly, this whole 'I want to be left alone to play MY SACRED STYLE and not have to interact with others' is not only selfish, but is the biggest factor contributing to lower subscriptions and the slow bleed out of this game. I see people in this thread citing it again and again. It's really a little bit pathetic.
Would it not be more fair if we would get Server Merges that we will get lets say 6-8 brand new Shards. And everyone could choose one and move there. So Housing starts by 0 for all Players. There should be limits for Castles & Keeps in Trammel & Felucca. All your Items would go in a special Moving Crate that goes with you to the Shared you choosed. Houses should all have the same amount of Lockdowns, so none would need a Castle or Keep or even 10 Houses to keep all their Items.
simplest method, free to play, 15 dollars a month (or current sub cost) for a house on the account.
the casual players just playing out of bank box would populate the game, and chances are a good portion of them would like the game enough to want a house and end up paying the 15 bucks per month when initially they wouldnt have given the game a chance because of that fee, but after playing the game for a while decided it was worth it. In general for a successful free to play game, only about 1 out of 100 players is expected to stay. but those 99 players that dont actually commit to the game long term provide population and interaction for the committed ones.
you could make the arguement that we already have a free trial. but that does nothing for returning vets, and is still very offputting to know your going to absolutely have to pay if you want to play the game for more than 2 weeks.
Last edited:
Seems much easier to just extend the free trail then.
that would be an excellent, and easy starting point. and absolutely needed if UO is ever to make it to Steam. Id really like to see vets be able to come back to see the game for free too tho, so maybe an unlimited "free trial" as well as unlimited "RTB with no house"
Let's face it...UO will never be what it was 15 years ago. It's still a great game but there is too much competition out there to get the subs back. I don't see players returning in droves therefore I believe shard consolidation is of no benefit. Anyone that wants to play on a higher population shard is free to move.
In my opinion, if UO wants to thrive, Broadsword needs to adapt the game to other platforms to bring in more players.
In my opinion, if UO wants to thrive, Broadsword needs to adapt the game to other platforms to bring in more players.
Right now everybody starts out with the SA expansion and get everything in that expansion plus everything before it.
How would FTP get HS, Gothic or Rustic or do you have to be a paying customer to buy "Boosters"?
Can FTP get the 7th char or more bank storage?
FTP sounds good until you take into account the RMT people and resource BOTs, how would you limit this? I am not saying all RMT players run BOTs but when you have what appears to be unlimited resources then they have to get it from somewhere and yes gold is a resource.
Would FTP get vendors?
There needs to be a lot more thought into FTP and how you would limit their accounts. There are a lot of accounts running BOTs and if a FTP account could do the same then why would they even bother paying for their accounts.
Subs need to be worth more than just a house or a lot of accounts will be closed because some people have a house just because they can but could get by on living out of their other account house.
Sorry but you can say FTP solves everything but the way you are presenting it it would destroy UO.
sigh
I've known Deraj for a couple of years now, and after reading this thread, I wanted to post in response to the assumption that he's somehow bored or unhappy or out to get his fellow players. He's a member of a fairly active guild, he's well-liked among those he plays with and organizes events people enjoy, and I've never seen him unnecessarily complain about anything. It's fine to disagree with his idea, but it's a silly to make assumptions about his motivations. I think it's fair to say that anyone willing to put the effort and time into formulating a proposal in the manner that he did cares about this game, the same as all of us. He even bothered to explain his background and where he was coming from on this.
As for his proposal, I don't know. My own personal experience in UO makes me think he's on to something. "MY PLAY-STYLE" is that of a role-player and I hate it when there's no one around to role-play with, particularly conflict-based RP. I started in November 1997, and played primarily on Catskills until 2004. I came back in 2011, played Atlantic for a couple years, then ended up back on Catskills because most (though not all) of the the Atlantic role-playing community seemed to vanish on us. I've seen UO at its most popular, and I've seen what it's become, and I find it hard to believe anyone really believes this is the most awesome it could potentially be.
Clearly some form of population consolidation isn't a cure-all, as there would have to be other changes to make it sustainable long-term, but it probably wouldn't be the ultimate doom for UO either. The game has gone through so many changes in the past nearly 18 years and people seem to join, quit, come back, etc. I've never seen the hard date, just my own observations, so I can't really make any claims past that.
I do think it's strange that people are arguing that poorly-populated shards are a positive; I really can't think of any other business model where this is considered a good thing. I also don't think the mighty Atlantic is quite as populated or scary these days as people seem to believe, there are numerous examples throughout this thread of just how it can be just as dead as everywhere else. Though there sure are a lot of houses and things to be bought!
I also get the nostalgia element, I've got plenty of fond memories of UO, my characters, and the people I've met. But I've had to start over a couple of times in UO, and it actually turned out okay. I made some new friends during my first week at my new school and they were kind of just as good as my old friends and I didn't need any major therapy or anything to get through the experience!. In my opinion, nostalgia is bad when it makes people risk averse. They become so caught up in how great things used to be that they're afraid to make any changes because deep down inside they're convinced it can't possibly be that great again. And that makes me kind of sad.
As for his proposal, I don't know. My own personal experience in UO makes me think he's on to something. "MY PLAY-STYLE" is that of a role-player and I hate it when there's no one around to role-play with, particularly conflict-based RP. I started in November 1997, and played primarily on Catskills until 2004. I came back in 2011, played Atlantic for a couple years, then ended up back on Catskills because most (though not all) of the the Atlantic role-playing community seemed to vanish on us. I've seen UO at its most popular, and I've seen what it's become, and I find it hard to believe anyone really believes this is the most awesome it could potentially be.
Clearly some form of population consolidation isn't a cure-all, as there would have to be other changes to make it sustainable long-term, but it probably wouldn't be the ultimate doom for UO either. The game has gone through so many changes in the past nearly 18 years and people seem to join, quit, come back, etc. I've never seen the hard date, just my own observations, so I can't really make any claims past that.
I do think it's strange that people are arguing that poorly-populated shards are a positive; I really can't think of any other business model where this is considered a good thing. I also don't think the mighty Atlantic is quite as populated or scary these days as people seem to believe, there are numerous examples throughout this thread of just how it can be just as dead as everywhere else. Though there sure are a lot of houses and things to be bought!
I also get the nostalgia element, I've got plenty of fond memories of UO, my characters, and the people I've met. But I've had to start over a couple of times in UO, and it actually turned out okay. I made some new friends during my first week at my new school and they were kind of just as good as my old friends and I didn't need any major therapy or anything to get through the experience!. In my opinion, nostalgia is bad when it makes people risk averse. They become so caught up in how great things used to be that they're afraid to make any changes because deep down inside they're convinced it can't possibly be that great again. And that makes me kind of sad.
The "flaw" in the business model that you propose, and what many folks don't seem to get, is that UO does not have to be an "either/or" model. There are already shards with varying population densities. The customer base of this business has the choice and ability to select a population that suits thier playestyle. When the game does not offer the playstyle you want as a customer, you leave. What you propose with shard mergers is to offer more of something that is already available at the expense of taking away something that is also currently available. McDonalds is not really likely to significantly increase sales of chicken nuggets if the stop selling burgers. Customers who want nuggets can already get them... And those who want burgers will go some place else that sells them.
Merlin
The Enchanter
Moderator
Professional
Governor
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
UNLEASHED
Campaign Patron
The current number of shards is simply too high based on current overall game population. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I agree with Judas' comment about nostalgia - many of those in this thread who keep on citing 'shard history' as a reason for being averse to change are likely approaching a state in their shard where they won't ever have anyone to share that 'history' with. At that point, what good is it?
Total guess work here, but I bet if they 'merged' the five least populated shards into one, you would still have a pretty 'dead' shard. I'm not saying let's cut the number to only four or five total shards, but I think the bottom five to six shards are probably expendable at this point. That's atleast a place to start.
Total guess work here, but I bet if they 'merged' the five least populated shards into one, you would still have a pretty 'dead' shard. I'm not saying let's cut the number to only four or five total shards, but I think the bottom five to six shards are probably expendable at this point. That's atleast a place to start.
Now there is an intelligent response. What else are you gonna do for an encore.
Well, like I said, I don't think that a shard consolidation is a cure-all either, at least not without other changes that are probably beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I'd argue that the whole issue of "shards with varying population densities" (which is a good way of phrasing it) isn't due to design or intent, but the result of player-base attrition that's unfortunately become accepted as status-quo. With respect to your analogy, I think the board of Ronald McDonald Inc. (or whatever it's called in reality) will do whatever it takes to increase profits and line their shareholders* pockets with more and more money. The value of burgers and nuggets are in their branding, not in their nostalgia (except how it relates to their branding). On the other hand, I don't think the developers of UO have the same concerns, and it's more analogous to keeping a gunshot wound from bleeding out further but no ambulance is on the way. But the basic idea of more people playing together increasing activity doesn't seem to be counter-intuitive to me. Most of the returning players I've encountered leave again because there aren't that many people to play with or that much going on for them. Granted, I can only speak for role-playing communities.
*I want to clarify that in my take on the analogy, McDonalds shareholders are not intended to be equated with UO players. We're the customers.
The term is obviously relative. Compared to say... 2000? None. Taken at present day relative to each other... ATL.
However, that is actually of little relevance to the topic of shard mergers. If the dwindling population left all those who are left yearning for higher population shards, we would all be on Atlantic. But we aren't. If you want to increase the overall player base and there by increase the ATL population, that is a different topic. But I disagree with the idea of removing the option to play a less populated shard if favor of forcing all the population together.
agreed. because the experience you say is currently available elsewhere, i just dont agree exists now at all when it did even 3 years ago. even on atlantic that experience does not exist right now. i think this is what the poster is trying to address.
The value of a burger or a nugget is not in their brand... It is in the customers demand for the product.
Here is another assumption that I think is flawed: Players on slow shard only solo play and avoid interactions with other players... But if they interacted with more players it would improve thier gaming experience... Thus we must thrust upon them more player interaction so they will like UO more and not leave.
Players on slower shard do interact with people, they just do it in a less saturated environment. Furthermore, they have decided that the level at which they interact is what makes their UO experience better. Shard populations may not have occurred by design... But there is still meaning in how they have evolved. Because players have the choice of where to play, the only logical conclusion is that those on slower shards find more value to their current location than they do in relocating.
But how do you justify taking away someone else's choice because you are unhappy with the choice you have? No one forced the current choice you have... It just is what it is. UO had times when it had massive populations, but just having lots of players didn't keep people here. Jamming everyone into a few more crowded shards will not stop the population decline. IMO far more people leave UO for other reasons than population.
I mean, saying going F2P would destroy UO isn't exactly an intelligent thought to begin with.
If the value wasn't in the brand, then why are McDonalds franchisees would spending all that money on franchise fees and other associated costs? You can't just separate customer demand from 50+ years of successful marketing, customer good-will, and increased obesity rates. Regardless, we're kind of arguing apples and oranges here, or burgers and nuggets, because consumable goods (and I use that term loosely when referring to McDonalds) and the online computer game/entertainment service provided by Broadsword probably don't make for the best analogy to begin with. A better comparison would probably be to another MMO. A better question is whether UO is even profitable at this point versus stable. I mean, clearly a bunch of EA employees didn't suddenly form an entirely new company to manage DAOC and UO because those games were making any significant impact on EA's bottom line.
I don't think that players on slow shards necessarily want to solo-play or avoid interactions. I think it's nostalgia that plays the biggest role in this and breeds contentment. However, I don't see how a more active or stable shard would negatively impact their play experience. You said it yourself that population numbers are all relative. Even Atlantic isn't what it was a few years ago population-wise, it just happens to be the best place to buy/sell stuff. For argument's sake, let's say there was some sort of large population consolidation. For argument's sake, let's say that people didn't leave in a huff over it. Do people really think we'd end up with a handful of densely populated shards like the days of yore? I don't. I think it probably wouldn't make a negative impact on people who prefer low populated shards, outside the stuff and nostalgia factors.
The fact that varying shard population densities weren't intended makes it a design flaw in my opinion and should've been addressed years ago. The same way that Trammel was created out of the belief that the original rule-set would scare off potential new players. That was a drastic change (one I personally didn't love) and whether or not it was successful is up for debate, but at least it demonstrated an attempt to take a risk, which I can respect. I mean, I can't imagine there's this large segment of the UO players who initially came to the game in the past 5 years and were like "Awesome, I can play for hours without seeing anyone" and chose to settle on a low-activity shard.
Last edited:
I still say you haven't thought this out at all... So what happens to people like me who have fully functional characters on dozens of shards? What do I get to have 35 character slots then? If I'm limited to 7 slots still how am I supposed to "get rid" of characters? How about I make you destroy 90% of your characters...
That's like telling the Brady's they can only have 3 kids so if they get married they have to chose 3 of their kids to kill.
No.... I'm not wanting to do that. Sure some shards there are skillless characters... sure some shards I might only have 5 characters of the 7... but still they are there.... what happens to them and my stuff that I have there? The 15+ years I have of gifts and such? Where does that go if I have to delete all my characters?
And if my home shard were destroyed... history lost..., I see little to no reason to stay.
That's like telling the Brady's they can only have 3 kids so if they get married they have to chose 3 of their kids to kill.
No.... I'm not wanting to do that. Sure some shards there are skillless characters... sure some shards I might only have 5 characters of the 7... but still they are there.... what happens to them and my stuff that I have there? The 15+ years I have of gifts and such? Where does that go if I have to delete all my characters?
And if my home shard were destroyed... history lost..., I see little to no reason to stay.
Here are a couple of questions for the folks in this thread who keep stating that shard mergers need to happen in order to save UO:
1. Do you have any first-hand, reliable information to indicate that the dev team feels as you do and that they are actually planning to close some shards and automatically move characters and items to other shards or to offer a way to make those transfers voluntarily?
2. If it were up to you to manage a shard merger/consolidation project for UO, would you give the news about the merger/consolidation project first to your player-independent contractors (e.g., EMs) or would your first whiff of an announcement be a very public one on the uo.com website?
3. How far in advance of the actual closure of shards would you make the announcement?
4. Would you appoint a particular employee to address questions and concerns about the shard closures? Edited to add: Would you have a Japanese-speaking employee available to address questions and concerns about the shard closures?
5. Would you offer any kind of compensation to players who would give up housing and characters because of shard closures and inability to retain characters (and their pets and banked items) which exceed the number of available character slots on an account?
6. How would you notify inactive players about the changes? If compensation was provided to active players pursuant to the answer to question 5, would that same compensation be extended to inactive players who tried to return to UO at some point after the shard merger/consolidation occurred?
7. Would you hire additional staff to do the coding and testing for this project? Or would you rely on existing staff only? What percentage of the game's entire budget would you allocate to this project? Would you drop any existing UO-related features or support to help pay for this project?
8. What priority would this project have in comparison to other planned or hoped-for enhancements/changes to UO? If you had to pick one or two other "major" projects that would be completed concurrently with shard mergers/consolidation, what would they be?
1. Do you have any first-hand, reliable information to indicate that the dev team feels as you do and that they are actually planning to close some shards and automatically move characters and items to other shards or to offer a way to make those transfers voluntarily?
2. If it were up to you to manage a shard merger/consolidation project for UO, would you give the news about the merger/consolidation project first to your player-independent contractors (e.g., EMs) or would your first whiff of an announcement be a very public one on the uo.com website?
3. How far in advance of the actual closure of shards would you make the announcement?
4. Would you appoint a particular employee to address questions and concerns about the shard closures? Edited to add: Would you have a Japanese-speaking employee available to address questions and concerns about the shard closures?
5. Would you offer any kind of compensation to players who would give up housing and characters because of shard closures and inability to retain characters (and their pets and banked items) which exceed the number of available character slots on an account?
6. How would you notify inactive players about the changes? If compensation was provided to active players pursuant to the answer to question 5, would that same compensation be extended to inactive players who tried to return to UO at some point after the shard merger/consolidation occurred?
7. Would you hire additional staff to do the coding and testing for this project? Or would you rely on existing staff only? What percentage of the game's entire budget would you allocate to this project? Would you drop any existing UO-related features or support to help pay for this project?
8. What priority would this project have in comparison to other planned or hoped-for enhancements/changes to UO? If you had to pick one or two other "major" projects that would be completed concurrently with shard mergers/consolidation, what would they be?
Last edited:
I think it is wrong to assume that players on slow shard are there in a bubble... Unaware of what other shards offer in terms of population. I would wager that most of them have at one point experimented with playing other shards. I will use myself as an example (whether I represent the typical small shard player could be up for debate, but I'll say that I do):
I started UO in 1998 on Napa and played exclusively there until 2003.
I returned to UO in 2010, initially on Napa. Since my return I have experimented with play on Sonoma, Pacific, Great Lakes, Lake Austin and Atlantic. I have a diverse compliment of characters on those shards including Tamers, Mages, Crafters, Fishers, etc. I have had houses on Napa, Sonoma, Lake Austin and Atlantic. I have been in very large guilds and small guilds, PvP guilds and PvM guilds. I enjoy most aspects of UO, and participate in all of them fairly regularly.
And for all I have done and the places I have done it, I prefer Napa. Not so much for its nostalgia (though I do like it), but for its pace and its players. No offense meant, but IMO there are just far too many a**holes on ATL. Players who sole reason to play UO seems to be to create as much grief for other players as they can. And I'm not talking about PvP, or even PKs. I couldn't tell you the last time I ran into one of those types of players on Napa. I know most players on Napa even though I may not be friends with them. And even the ones I will PvP with on sight if I see them in fel are decent players.
I chose Napa because I like the experience of playing that shard much more than I enjoy places like ATL. And I am willing to bet most of the folks who have chosen to stay on slower shards are going to tell you a pretty similar story.
The question I don't see anyone asking, even if shard mergers weren't taken off the table, is does anyone really trust this current (or any past teams) to actually be able to pull this off smoothly? The downsides to bugs in this are pretty critical.
My solution to the shopping problem is as simple as it is likely impossible. Place permanent gates at WBB on all shards to a new land accessible to all . Call it the "new shopping emporium" or something like that and have ample places for players to place vendors. (No housing) I'd also throw in an arena for xshard duels and a permanent home for rares fests. The only negatives I see (outside of most likely being impossible) is the decline of luna housing and ungodly expensive items being sold on Atlantic. This would give residents of the quiet and dead reasons to stay. But since no-one would be forced to use general vendors I could see the greedy Atlantic superbrokers not putting high end items in the new area (which is fine that's a free market)
My solution to the shopping problem is as simple as it is likely impossible. Place permanent gates at WBB on all shards to a new land accessible to all . Call it the "new shopping emporium" or something like that and have ample places for players to place vendors. (No housing) I'd also throw in an arena for xshard duels and a permanent home for rares fests. The only negatives I see (outside of most likely being impossible) is the decline of luna housing and ungodly expensive items being sold on Atlantic. This would give residents of the quiet and dead reasons to stay. But since no-one would be forced to use general vendors I could see the greedy Atlantic superbrokers not putting high end items in the new area (which is fine that's a free market)
Meaning we'd have to move to one of those busiest shards making the game more fun for the 'mob scene fans' and souring the fun of the game for ourselves. The large percentage of players happily spread across the rest of the shards can just be ignored huh?
Late 2012 or around there. We probably have a very different opinion of what constitutes a mob scene.
And it's very selfish to insist we all clump together to make 'you' happy so you can play YOUR SACRED STYLE and have mobs to interact with, forget what anyone else might enjoy.
People in this thread are citing it again and again because it's what they enjoy. Simple concept, and hardly pathetic. They like their shards rural atmosphere. At least they don't want to screw over others game fun like those pressing for forcing players into large groups they don't want to be part of.