THE ONLY THREAD ABOUT Shard Consolidations

[Judas D'arc]

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.

I agree, UO's player base isn't all that big (it's almost incestuous really), and nobody really exists in a bubble. In the RP-circles I've frequented, a lot of the same names seem to pop in and out, and even on Catskills EM events, I see a lot of names I recognize from Atlantic. I have no doubt that everyone who has any investment or knowledge of the game knows exactly what their choices are and are just as informed as I am, if not more.
Also, my reasons for leaving Atlantic a year and a half ago for Catskills (along with the original poster) are probably not dissimilar to yours. During my time on Atlantic, I met a lot of cool people, but I definitely encountered the mentality you cited. I'm not entirely convinced that the Atlantic is necessarily linked to the population-size or just the character of the shard, particularly it's role as UO's giant shopping mall. On the other hand, I just don't see a handful of Atlantic clones being the direct result of a shard consolidation because I simply don't believe that the UO player base is that large anymore. I get the feeling you think it would be.

I am curious how you rate your Napa experience between 1998 and 2003 to the one you currently have now. It's my experience that there are like a handful of active RP guilds on Catskills right now. During the summer of 1998, our guild had war status with approximately 100 role-playing guilds. I realize that these numbers are never happening again, but it'd be nice to even have double what we have now. I don't think argueing for shard mergers or player consolidations are doing it to agitate or force people together, it's out of concern for the game's long-term health and survivability and a desire to see increased activity. Would it permanently break UO? I can't say for sure, it would probably depend on the specifics (and I've seen some nice suggestions in this thread). But Trammel didn't. Age of Shadows didn't. However, I think it'd be nice to see some sort of risk-taking rather than the current slow-death status quo.

 

[Judas D'arc]

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.

Well, clearly Jan has to go.

But seriously, this is clearly a speculative discussion since it's apparently been ruled out by the current regime. A lot of your questions would depend on the exact plan for something that isn't actually going to happen. Such as how many shards, the method of consolidation, and what happens to pre-existing characters and items. Deraj's specific proposal answered at least some of your concerns I think.

 

[Kirthag]

Okay... I'm going to do something rather radical -

This thread, so long as it stays intelligent and comprehensive as discussion, brainstorming and non-combative, will stay alive and kicking.

ALL OTHER MERGE THREADS FOR SHARD/HOUSING/DUNGEON WILL BE LOCKED DOWN IMMEDIATELY - NO NEW MERGE THREADS.

People want to talk about this, awesome! Might get some really good ideas out of it for the dev team! However I'm going to lay some serious guidelines on this thread.

1. No personal attacks what-so-ever. I don't care if the other guy is your mortal enemy and pooped on your puppy's face. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS or there will be warnings and most likely some time-outs.
2. Keep to topic. We will monitor this thread and delete ANY POST off-topic. People who post OT will also get warning.
3. In case you don't know what the topic is: SHARD MERGERS - with side convos regarding any other kind of merge in the game. Keep it at that.
4. DO NOT PESTER THE MODERATION TEAM WITH PERSONAL VENDETTAS. If this happens, both parties will enjoy a short time-out.

This is good conversation - keep it that way.

This is the ONLY warning about this to everyone. Do not create a new merge thread - it will be deleted and quite possibly the poster will be given a time-out for disregarding Admin instructions.


Carry on.

 

[Merus]

I agree, UO's player base isn't all that big (it's almost incestuous really), and nobody really exists in a bubble. In the RP-circles I've frequented, a lot of the same names seem to pop in and out, and even on Catskills EM events, I see a lot of names I recognize from Atlantic. I have no doubt that everyone who has any investment or knowledge of the game knows exactly what their choices are and are just as informed as I am, if not more.
Also, my reasons for leaving Atlantic a year and a half ago for Catskills (along with the original poster) are probably not dissimilar to yours. During my time on Atlantic, I met a lot of cool people, but I definitely encountered the mentality you cited. I'm not entirely convinced that the Atlantic is necessarily linked to the population-size or just the character of the shard, particularly it's role as UO's giant shopping mall. On the other hand, I just don't see a handful of Atlantic clones being the direct result of a shard consolidation because I simply don't believe that the UO player base is that large anymore. I get the feeling you think it would be.

I am curious how you rate your Napa experience between 1998 and 2003 to the one you currently have now. It's my experience that there are like a handful of active RP guilds on Catskills right now. During the summer of 1998, our guild had war status with approximately 100 role-playing guilds. I realize that these numbers are never happening again, but it'd be nice to even have double what we have now. I don't think argueing for shard mergers or player consolidations are doing it to agitate or force people together, it's out of concern for the game's long-term health and survivability and a desire to see increased activity. Would it permanently break UO? I can't say for sure, it would probably depend on the specifics (and I've seen some nice suggestions in this thread). But Trammel didn't. Age of Shadows didn't. However, I think it'd be nice to see some sort of risk-taking rather than the current slow-death status quo.

You know it is really REALLY hard to compare the two time periods for so many different reasons. What I wanted as a gamer was different back then. We all had our "main" and maybe one or two alternates. I easily spent 95% of my play time on one character doing most pvp. Before I left in 2003, I never... not even once left Fel. I was in a guild with 350+ people. It was a different game back then.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I mean, saying going F2P would destroy UO isn't exactly an intelligent thought to begin with.

Did you not see the part about if it were done the way he presented it

 

[Tina Small]

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.

I started UO in late 2004 and initially played on GL and then branched out to Baja the next year. Spent a couple of years on Baja but then most everyone in the guild quit playing shortly before Kingdom Reborn came out.

Later that year, I ran into someone who talked me into trying out factions. Joined COM on Baja and then my new friend switched us over to TB and we ended up joining forces with a faction guild that was visiting from Napa. Not long afterwards, they decided to brave the lag and try out factions on GL and we went with them. I still had two houses on GL and got another one to use as a guildhouse for the faction guild. Unfortunately, later that year rumors started swirling that made UO's future seem even more doubtful than ever and by the time the news broke that what was left of the UO team was moving to Virginia, the faction guild I was in was more or less dormant. I spent some time kicking around on Atlantic around then, even joining a big guild on Atlantic to see what it was like. However, I hated the constant drama, scamming, and feigned helplessness. It just seemed to be never-ending.

Fortunately for me, I ran into someone that I knew from factions on GL and joined his small guild on Sonoma. I also joined the guild's allied faction guild and we spent the next year or two doing factions on quite a few of the North American shards. Eventually, though, that activity kinda tapered off, at least for me. But by then I had developed quite a few characters on the North American shards and the idea of working up characters on literally every shard in the game had taken root for both me and a couple of my guildmates.

At this point, I have homes on Sonoma, Lake Austin, Origin, Great Lakes, Atlantic, Balhae, Yamato, Hokuto, Formosa, and Siege Perilous. I also have several developed characters (mostly crafters, resource gatherers, and tamers) on every shard except Mugen. I've got characters there but just haven't been able to dig in and work on them.

So, yeah, I've tried out every shard in the game and met a lot of interesting people along the way. No, I'm not much of a joiner and don't necessarily fall all over myself to participate in every social event that happens in UO. I'm perfectly content many days to just dink around and explore or try to squeeze in some gains on my hundreds of characters or make a little more gold for many of them in hopes of eventually being able to better their power scroll and stat scroll situations.

I would really hate to see so much of that effort and so many of those memories laid to waste if there were shard mergers/consolidations. And I know I'm not the only person who has been crazy enough to do something like this. I've asked over the years who else does this nutty thing besides me and my guildmates and quite a few people have replied. And I know for a fact that quite a few of those people have invested heavily in soulstones so they can train EVERY skill on EVERY shard.

Are we all anti-social people to have done all this? Or are we people who have tried to stick with UO and explore it to its fullest extent over the years, through thick and thin, through dev teams large and small, through good times and bad? I think we have. No, we didn't take off and leave for several years, and then come back and bemoan the fact that things had changed. We kept playing and paying to help keep UO running, always hoping things would turn around and all those characters we'd worked on would give us enjoyment down the road, long after their training days were over.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

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.

There is no flaw in the business model as far as less populated shards are concerned.
A healthy % of people pay good money/gold for privacy ingame and rl. I reference rl only because the person I am replying to brought up the term business model which is rl.
Some people want to do their own thing in less densely populated areas. As long as they are paying customers they are healthy for the business. Any idea that displaces them is in fact unhealthy for the business no matter how well intended. Period

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

I started UO in late 2004 and initially played on GL and then branched out to Baja the next year. Spent a couple of years on Baja but then most everyone in the guild quit playing shortly before Kingdom Reborn came out.

Later that year, I ran into someone who talked me into trying out factions. Joined COM on Baja and then my new friend switched us over to TB and we ended up joining forces with a faction guild that was visiting from Napa. Not long afterwards, they decided to brave the lag and try out factions on GL and we went with them. I still had two houses on GL and got another one to use as a guildhouse for the faction guild. Unfortunately, later that year rumors started swirling that made UO's future seem even more doubtful than ever and by the time the news broke that what was left of the UO team was moving to Virginia, the faction guild I was in was more or less dormant. I spent some time kicking around on Atlantic around then, even joining a big guild on Atlantic to see what it was like. However, I hated the constant drama, scamming, and feigned helplessness. It just seemed to be never-ending.

Fortunately for me, I ran into someone that I knew from factions on GL and joined his small guild on Sonoma. I also joined the guild's allied faction guild and we spent the next year or two doing factions on quite a few of the North American shards. Eventually, though, that activity kinda tapered off, at least for me. But by then I had developed quite a few characters on the North American shards and the idea of working up characters on literally every shard in the game had taken root for both me and a couple of my guildmates.

At this point, I have homes on Sonoma, Lake Austin, Origin, Great Lakes, Atlantic, Balhae, Yamato, Hokuto, Formosa, and Siege Perilous. I also have several developed characters (mostly crafters, resource gatherers, and tamers) on every shard except Mugen. I've got characters there but just haven't been able to dig in and work on them.

So, yeah, I've tried out every shard in the game and met a lot of interesting people along the way. No, I'm not much of a joiner and don't necessarily fall all over myself to participate in every social event that happens in UO. I'm perfectly content many days to just dink around and explore or try to squeeze in some gains on my hundreds of characters or make a little more gold for many of them in hopes of eventually being able to better their power scroll and stat scroll situations.

I would really hate to see so much of that effort and so many of those memories laid to waste if there were shard mergers/consolidations. And I know I'm not the only person who has been crazy enough to do something like this. I've asked over the years who else does this nutty thing besides me and my guildmates and quite a few people have replied. And I know for a fact that quite a few of those people have invested heavily in soulstones so they can train EVERY skill on EVERY shard.

Are we all anti-social people to have done all this? Or are we people who have tried to stick with UO and explore it to its fullest extent over the years, through thick and thin, through dev teams large and small, through good times and bad? I think we have. No, we didn't take off and leave for several years, and then come back and bemoan the fact that things had changed. We kept playing and paying to help keep UO running, always hoping things would turn around and all those characters we'd worked on would give us enjoyment down the road, long after their training days were over.

Very well stated by Tina.
You reward longtime paying multi-shard & small-shard players by completely screwing over their entire existence for what purpose?
To take a stab in the dark trying to appease the fickle players that jumped ship once or twice before who may or may not come back for no other reason than more than one shard(Atlantic)is busy?
Not a chance.
There is a reason they left UO and there is a reason the small sharders have stayed with UO. This idea does not address either so is completely without merit imo

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

wrong. because there arent ANY shards right now with high population.

Your post appears to be based on objectifying a subjective judgement. You don't like the population levels on any shards. Therefore none of them are high population.

Your (and in fairness I'm not talking solely to you but to anyone who supports this idea, at all) options are:

1. complain on a message board and attempt to force your own preferences upon other players and insult the people who know better;
   
2. make a new character on a shard with a population that's closer to a level you like;
3. transfer your existing character via a token;
4. transfer your existing character via a shard shield to such a shard;
5. wander shard to shard and only do things you feel will attract big crowds such as rares fests, EM events, Global events, larger scale player events, and so forth.

You (and again I don't mean the individual to whom I'm replying, but anyone who supports this idea) have chosen option 1.

There is no way to bring back UO's highest population days. Trammel came too late in its history to grab the momentum, and it took too long to tame the excesses of the Age of Shadows, and games that were Trammel-ish from birth, such as Everquest and World of Warcraft, by and large do better, as I've explained elsewhere.

Having said that, in UO's numerical high point, the complaints about over-population, lag, an environment that some folks insisted (sometimes with deliberate attempts to attach no small amount of cruelty) on using "trailer park" or "suburban subdivisions" to describe, and such, were near constant. (And if Atlantic now inspires complaints of lag and reverts and crashes and the like, and you don't consider it high population, imagine what'd happen with merged shards.....)

So it's a true damned either way situation.

You may well get what you want someday, but not because it's a good idea: Either because shouting (sadly) works, or because the game really at that pint really is that close to shutting down anyway.

The results won't be good, in all probability.

-Galen's player

 

[Smoot]

There is no way to bring back UO's highest population days. Trammel came too late in its history to grab the momentum, and it took too long to tame the excesses of the Age of Shadows, and games that were Trammel-ish from birth, such as Everquest and World of Warcraft, by and large do better, as I've explained elsewhere.



-Galen's player

there is, a shard merger. thats the whole point of this thread and im not even for that specific idea to bring back population. but you have to admit, if all current shards were merged into 1 shard, that shards population would be basically full, comparable to a high pop shard in UOs prime.

fact of the matter is, there is not 1 single shard that i know of which could be considered "high pop" by modern gaming standards. a shard merger, while not the ideal, yes is one way to allow players who enjoy a high pop shard to be able to play on one.

being realistic, official UO servers were not made to host 10 or 20 people at a time. they were made for hundreds to thousands. if someone enjoys an extremely unpopulated shard they can host their own UO server. the official servers were not meant for that.

 

[Judas D'arc]

You know it is really REALLY hard to compare the two time periods for so many different reasons. What I wanted as a gamer was different back then. We all had our "main" and maybe one or two alternates. I easily spent 95% of my play time on one character doing most pvp. Before I left in 2003, I never... not even once left Fel. I was in a guild with 350+ people. It was a different game back then.

I agree, things are vastly different. They even changed a lot between when I started and when I left in 2004.

Maybe part of our difference of opinion here is that while I've (hopefully) evolved as a player/human being, I don't think what I want from my gaming experience has changed all that much over the years?

 

[Judas D'arc]

I started UO in late 2004 and initially played on GL and then branched out to Baja the next year. Spent a couple of years on Baja but then most everyone in the guild quit playing shortly before Kingdom Reborn came out.

Later that year, I ran into someone who talked me into trying out factions. Joined COM on Baja and then my new friend switched us over to TB and we ended up joining forces with a faction guild that was visiting from Napa. Not long afterwards, they decided to brave the lag and try out factions on GL and we went with them. I still had two houses on GL and got another one to use as a guildhouse for the faction guild. Unfortunately, later that year rumors started swirling that made UO's future seem even more doubtful than ever and by the time the news broke that what was left of the UO team was moving to Virginia, the faction guild I was in was more or less dormant. I spent some time kicking around on Atlantic around then, even joining a big guild on Atlantic to see what it was like. However, I hated the constant drama, scamming, and feigned helplessness. It just seemed to be never-ending.

Fortunately for me, I ran into someone that I knew from factions on GL and joined his small guild on Sonoma. I also joined the guild's allied faction guild and we spent the next year or two doing factions on quite a few of the North American shards. Eventually, though, that activity kinda tapered off, at least for me. But by then I had developed quite a few characters on the North American shards and the idea of working up characters on literally every shard in the game had taken root for both me and a couple of my guildmates.

At this point, I have homes on Sonoma, Lake Austin, Origin, Great Lakes, Atlantic, Balhae, Yamato, Hokuto, Formosa, and Siege Perilous. I also have several developed characters (mostly crafters, resource gatherers, and tamers) on every shard except Mugen. I've got characters there but just haven't been able to dig in and work on them.

So, yeah, I've tried out every shard in the game and met a lot of interesting people along the way. No, I'm not much of a joiner and don't necessarily fall all over myself to participate in every social event that happens in UO. I'm perfectly content many days to just dink around and explore or try to squeeze in some gains on my hundreds of characters or make a little more gold for many of them in hopes of eventually being able to better their power scroll and stat scroll situations.

I would really hate to see so much of that effort and so many of those memories laid to waste if there were shard mergers/consolidations. And I know I'm not the only person who has been crazy enough to do something like this. I've asked over the years who else does this nutty thing besides me and my guildmates and quite a few people have replied. And I know for a fact that quite a few of those people have invested heavily in soulstones so they can train EVERY skill on EVERY shard.

Are we all anti-social people to have done all this? Or are we people who have tried to stick with UO and explore it to its fullest extent over the years, through thick and thin, through dev teams large and small, through good times and bad? I think we have. No, we didn't take off and leave for several years, and then come back and bemoan the fact that things had changed. We kept playing and paying to help keep UO running, always hoping things would turn around and all those characters we'd worked on would give us enjoyment down the road, long after their training days were over.

I find your UO resume interesting in comparison to mine because it appears that you weren't playing through what I feel were the two biggest changes to UO, which were UO:R and AOS. Both those expansions drastically changed of myself and others. I would argue that it was far more drastic and impacted far more people than a shard consolidation would at this point. But at least the developers were willing to take the risk because they thought it would be better for their product.

I don't think your opposition to a shard merger/consolidation makes you anti-social and I understand your reasons for being against it. For it to work, there would have to be a lot of planning that balanced a lot of different competing needs. Realistically, I don't think it would ever happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the shrinking player base is a reality.

I will say I don't think your or anyone else deserves extra-credit, nor is your $$$ worth more than anyone else just because you happened to continue paying for a product with the hope that it might get better, while some of usleft and came back again. Just like my $$$ wasn't worth more than the potential players the developers thought UO:R would bring in or retain. Blind loyalty to a product is actually a negative because it leads to complacency and taking the customer-base for granted. There's this weird fan fiction entitlement mentality in UO, which I think is fostered by the developers to some extent, and I think that excuses poor customer service that wouldn't fly in any other context.

 

[Judas D'arc]

There is no flaw in the business model as far as less populated shards are concerned.
A healthy % of people pay good money/gold for privacy ingame and rl. I reference rl only because the person I am replying to brought up the term business model which is rl.
Some people want to do their own thing in less densely populated areas. As long as they are paying customers they are healthy for the business. Any idea that displaces them is in fact unhealthy for the business no matter how well intended. Period

I don't really agree with how you're framing the issue. It's not a matter of less populated shards, it's a matter of what's good for the overall product. That's the flaw I find in the business model, particularly because it wasn't by design. For someone who is only concerned with privacy in-game, the current status quo is perfect. And it'll be great up until when and if the time comes that there's no longer a UO.

Personally, I think it's strange to want privacy in an MMO, but you're entitled to your play-style.

 

[Tina Small]

"Blind loyalty to a product...."

That gave me a good laugh, thinking you apparently intended to refer to me. I've been anything but blind to or mute about changes in UO during the time I've played.

 

[Judas D'arc]

That gave me a good laugh, thinking you apparently intended to refer to me. I've been anything but blind to or mute about changes in UO during the time I've played.

Well, it was directed in response to you, but it was more of a general statement. Realistically, it could also be directed at me or anyone else in this thread who maintains one or two or 10 accounts despite dissatisfaction with how the game is run. That was sort of my point, as much as we're made to feel like our opinion matters, in reality we're voting with our dollars and nothing else.

 

[Kirthag]

I keep reading about play styles and the effects of feature/shard merges on play-styles and such, but yet I don't really see anything that would prompt a business to actually get R&D going to justify such an action. The primary purpose of a business is to make money, and EA has contracted Broadsword to do just that. Broadsword needs to add more subscriptions - by getting old players back or by luring in new ones - what matters is the bottom line and if it is black or red. If EA doesn't like the color of that bottom line - they will then do something we as customers may or may not like so much - and collectively we will have absolutely no say in the matter

• Merging shards will alienate too many players who like the sleepier, less populated shards or have multiple accounts just for houses - thus will be a loss in subs.
• Not merging is alienating players who, for the most part, desire more active shard-communities. This is a loss in subs.
• Every RTB brings out the older-absent vets, who come, partake for the month, then leave as they are not getting that community feel they enjoyed from back in the day.
• Every new promotion (not that we've had many) which is geared to bring in new subs falls flat due to antiquated mechanics and confusing presentation in the dual clients as well as no real noobie instruction (this is how you walk, this is how you run, this is how you interface, etc.).

These are just a few of the inherit issues that should be addressed (and hopefully are being addressed) by Broadsword or EA will say, "No good. You didn't meet your mark."

As players (read: paying customers) our opinions matter little until it affects the color of that bottom line. Our combined passion could cause a grassroots movement (as it had in the past), but that would have to be a concerted effort. My sister (the one who introduced me to UO back in '97) read this thread and got very confused. Her questions, "Why are they all fighting about it? Don't they realize it is not the game features but the player unity that made UO so great?"

It kinda made me step back and wonder that myself....


We know (at least short term) that there will be no merger of anything. Long run, who knows? *shrug*

We can all disagree till the cows fall from sky for having missed that shot at the moon - what would be awesome is to have some sort of compromise that we can say, "HAY!!! We, the Stratics Commuity, desire a feature change to help bring subscriptions up! Here's our ideas!"

Otherwise, we are all just beating our chests like gorillas in the mists to make ourselves feel important.

 

[Ender]

Personally I don't get the appeal of a quiet (empty) shard outside of lag issues. Broadsword might as well sell server tools for those people.

 

[Angel of Sonoma]

...
being realistic, official UO servers were not made to host 10 or 20 people at a time. they were made for hundreds to thousands. if someone enjoys an extremely unpopulated shard they can host their own UO server. the official servers were not meant for that.

hmmm...i don't know about that. how many of us have attended an EM event where there were 40-50 other players and it was a total lag-fest? i know this happens more than i like and i'm on a high end pc.

 

[Smoot]

hmmm...i don't know about that. how many of us have attended an EM event where there were 40-50 other players and it was a total lag-fest? i know this happens more than i like and i'm on a high end pc.

agreed to an extent, but remember there are huge expanses of sosaria that are barely touched right now. even if a server were full with 500 - 1k players on at one time, i find it hard to believe more than 50 or so would be in one area. to nit-pick numbers, i usually have no lag when its around 50 people even on asian shards. its when it gets up to 80 or 100 players plus mobs / bosses that it seems to be an issue.

you might be right tho, ever since the move to the cloud maybe the servers cant even handle the numbers they were originally intended for.

 

[Tanivar]

My sister (the one who introduced me to UO back in '97) read this thread and got very confused. Her questions, "Why are they all fighting about it? Don't they realize it is not the game features but the player unity that made UO so great?"

It kinda made me step back and wonder that myself....

Perhaps not everyone feels that way. I've tended to be more of one of the people in the background, the shopkeeper you see busy at his crafts but rarely taking part in community events.

I mainly came back to UO due to the content and since I lean towards gathering flavor hunting than taking on the big baddies like most do, I rarely have problems with busy hunting areas and wind up hunting solo. If I do join an event,with the text scrolling on the left of the screen often unread because my character is fighting for his life, it doesn't inspire very much of a sense of community. *shrugs*

The population of players has settled in where they are happy. Making them unhappy by forcing a move is just going to make them inclined to play less, and possibly another game. Those that need a crowd around them need to just start a thread here, discuss it, and pick a shard to gather on and just move to that shard. Their problem solved.

The unhappy campers who need crowds around them need to just all get on the same shard so their happy, and leave the rest of us where we are happy.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

there is, a shard merger. thats the whole point of this thread

For those who might miss the logical fallacy here, I'll point it out: Merging shards wouldn't actually create subscriptions, it would just make a shard that'd physically resemble, temporarily (until people realized they'd been sacrificed on the altar of others' preferences and left), what UO looked like before competition, and superior business models, caught up with us.

*shrugs*

-Galen's player

 

[Kirthag]

Perhaps not everyone feels that way. I've tended to be more of one of the people in the background, the shopkeeper you see busy at his crafts but rarely taking part in community events.

For my sister, it wasn't community events - it was community interaction. Players relying on others for their needs, gathering impromptu at each others' houses for training or chatting. Grouping up with complete strangers to go on hunts, then all gathering back at a public smithy where someone would repair her armor. Running from Reds and escorting miners to protect them from thieves. Actually picking up reagents from the ground and selling them in bags of 50 each for 100gp. That sort of community interaction. Events were hosted by guilds, the story arc was all encompassing from the dev team - and shards developed by player participation. She was Kayla Kamron on Atlantic. My first Kirthag was there with her... and the Bates (Norman and Mother) as well as MudPuppy and others... Moonglow was our city of choice. Just going to Britain was an adventure and tested our hide and seek skills to stay away from the Reds. wow... those were the days


She asked me about some of the old player towns. She might reactivate her account (she left for evercrack in 1999 and hasn't been back since - I hate her for that) so it should be rather interesting to see her view on things.

 

[Lord Frodo]

being realistic, official UO servers were not made to host 10 or 20 people at a time. they were made for hundreds to thousands. if someone enjoys an extremely unpopulated shard they can host their own UO server. the official servers were not meant for that.

The servers were designed to host up to hundreds to thousands that does not mean that they can not host 10-20 people and just so you know those servers are long gone with the cloud and the cloud can host a lot more than the old UO servers which really means nothing 1 or 100,00 it does not matter to the cloud. The server have nothing to do with this discussion. There are people that like lower populated shards and there are people that like higher populated shards and as long as EA is making money supporting all of our wishes then why do you care or is this so important to all the people trying to support this idea to make us bend to their will. If EA thought for one minute that a shard merger would make them more money then we would have a shard merger. Until EA tells us this is going everybody can GUESS because there is absolutely no proof what so ever that a shard would help UO. Are people that hard up or what ever that they think that everybody has to play a game the way they think it should be played. Who are we hurting by playing on a lower populated shard, NOBODY. Why do we have to cater to your wants/needs/desires just so you will be happy and play UO the way you think it should be played. We pay our sups the same as you do and you have no more say on how UO is to be played than we do. The shards are there and we have all heard from the BIG BOYS that the shards will not go away so stop trying to force us to play UO your way and allow us to play UO our way. Sorry you don't like our UO but NOBODY has suggested that your shard go away and you are forced to play on a low populated shard. Close down Alt and see how long UO lasts. UO will last as long as it would if they close the other shards because people vote with their subs.

 

[Aurelius]

Your (and in fairness I'm not talking solely to you but to anyone who supports this idea, at all) options are:

1. complain on a message board and attempt to force your own preferences upon other players and insult the people who know better;

Hold on a second ... I have not got the impression anyone in this thread is 'forcing' anything at all on anyone (as if any posts here 'force' the Devs to do anything, hell I don't think they are even persuaded by, or often even understand, anything that we post), they are trying to persuade people of their ideas - which is exactly what a forum should be for, no?

I don't agree with the concept of shard merging, but it's hardly insulting if someone else thinks it is good and puts out their reasoning why, and I'm intrigued how you conclude some people 'know better' because they don't agree with the argument being put forward - they just have a different opinion.

You do seem to be rather dramatically overreacting there....

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Hold on a second ... I have not got the impression anyone in this thread is 'forcing' anything at all on anyone (as if any posts here 'force' the Devs to do anything, hell I don't think they are even persuaded by, or often even understand, anything that we post), they are trying to persuade people of their ideas - which is exactly what a forum should be for, no?

I don't agree with the concept of shard merging, but it's hardly insulting if someone else thinks it is good and puts out their reasoning why, and I'm intrigued how you conclude some people 'know better' because they don't agree with the argument being put forward - they just have a different opinion.

You do seem to be rather dramatically overreacting there....

Nice try I guess.

The "forcing," in context I was very, very clear, refers to the very idea of a shard merger, versus the currently available options for finding a shard more to certain folks' liking. As in, you have certain options, and, instead, you choose to support an idea that'd force your preferences on those who do not share them.

As to the forcefulness of my argument, look in this thread at post 26, 28, 31, 36, 43, 62, 73, 86, 106, 116, 121, 147, 176, all of which either tread shard mergers as the only option (sometimes conceding there's only one reason not to do such a thing, that being housing); or insult those who recognize how bad an idea this'd be (usually by calling us some variant on 'selfish'). My review of the thread to come up with those posts was pretty cursory. There probably were more.

This is the point, most typically in such discussions, where I'm accused of being "desperate," because I'm finding evidence, or where a typo or something is seized upon. (Along the lines of, I typed post 26 but seem to've meant post 27 or something.) Or where a line in my post is picked out out of context and responded to. Or something like that.

Ultimately these discussions are about the faith of the pro-merger crowd. No amount of argument will shake that faith, I know.

-Galen's player

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

I don't really agree with how you're framing the issue. It's not a matter of less populated shards, it's a matter of what's good for the overall product. That's the flaw I find in the business model, particularly because it wasn't by design. For someone who is only concerned with privacy in-game, the current status quo is perfect. And it'll be great up until when and if the time comes that there's no longer a UO.

Personally, I think it's strange to want privacy in an MMO, but you're entitled to your play-style.

I am not framing an issue and it is 100% a matter of less populated shards. No offense but your semantics and way out of context McDonalds business analogies have done nothing to address what is obviously and inherently wrong with the OP's idea.
What's good for the overall product is keeping current subscribers while at the same time attracting new subscribers. That is irrefutable yet the OP chose to completely ignore/dismiss it.
The plan as put forth by the OP will in no way even guarantee one new subscriber but will 100% for sure cause many current subscribers to quit.
If you were a competing company you couldn't devise a surer way to damage the game.
Given the fact that a large % of current subscribers with means do not want to group on a select one or two shards why would anyone think other former players(quitters)would?

And for the record, I play Atlantic and do not crave privacy of any sorts. But I am experienced enough in game and intelligent enough to realize that many, many others do prefer the quieter aspects of the game.
Lets not forget that some of the most popular aspects of UO are best done in privacy. Things such as house designing/decorating and crafting. I ofc recall when a small group of crafters would hang at the brit forge to sell items but that in no way changes the fact that crafting is best done by yourself in the privacy of your own home where all your resources are amassed and you can make whatever you like. You are not reforging, perfecting and enhancing full suits of armor while standing around a forge in town.
How about taming? Do you want a crowd of other tamers around you when that 4.6 greater dragon spawns or heaven forbid, that blaze cu? I think not.

 

[Aurelius]

This is the point, most typically in such discussions, where I'm accused of being "desperate," because I'm finding evidence, or where a typo or something is seized upon. (Along the lines of, I typed post 26 but seem to've meant post 27 or something.) Or where a line in my post is picked out out of context and responded to. Or something like that.

Ultimately these discussions are about the faith of the pro-merger crowd. No amount of argument will shake that faith, I know.

-Galen's player

I'm baffled by that response ... I don't agree with mergers, but am prepared to discuss the ideas other people have - No idea what you mean by 'nice try', didn't refer to you as 'desperate', or argue you are nitpicking, but surely people are allowed to support ideas that have implications for others, and we're free to disagree with them? Sure some might 'insult' others, but - so what, it's overheated words on a forum, the genuine discussion goes on.....

 

[Smoot]

Who are we hurting by playing on a lower populated shard, NOBODY.

for the sake of arguement, this is who very low population shards hurt:
---the people coming back to the game remembering seeing people, when they no longer see people they leave the game again
---the average player who cant sell goods on the low pop shard because there is no economy, so is forced to either transfer to atlantic or never sell anything
---low pop shards hurt every player in the game because they allow content to be devalued, meaning, if you can easily farm loot / scrolls / items with little to no competition the intrinsic value of those items goes down. Being able to buy goods should be a luxury. healthy gameplay should try to demand the player actually does game content to get those drops. right now in UO we have a system were goods are much more easily bought for extremelely low amounts of gold rather than playing the game to get said items.
---pvp players have no one to pvp with


Im not saying those who enjoy a low-pop environment are wrong for enjoying that, but the reasons i gave above are in fact the ways low-population hurts other players both active, inactive, and on all shards.

how would you feel if to increase the intrinsic value (in order to encourage actual gameplay rather than buying) arty drops only spawned on saturdays, stealable only spawned on sundays, scrolls only dropped on mondays, weapons/armor/jewels only dropped on tuesdays etc. because thats the only method i can see right now in the games current state that would increase value enough to the point where it would be worth doing the actual game content to get these items.

In short, its not the issue of whether or not someone enjoys actually playing a highpop or lowpop shard, its the side effects.

 

[Tina Small]

As players (read: paying customers) our opinions matter little until it affects the color of that bottom line. Our combined passion could cause a grassroots movement (as it had in the past), but that would have to be a concerted effort. My sister (the one who introduced me to UO back in '97) read this thread and got very confused. Her questions, "Why are they all fighting about it? Don't they realize it is not the game features but the player unity that made UO so great?"

It kinda made me step back and wonder that myself....

I believe that no matter which side of the fence anyone appears to be on based on their posts in this thread and whether or not we have explicitly stated it, we all have in common a strong desire to see UO survive with a much higher number of active subscriptions than it has now. So +1 for "player unity," perhaps?

 

[Smoot]

Lets not forget that some of the most popular aspects of UO are best done in privacy.

dont forget bot farming where were the 30 bot accounts farming minax arties 24 hrs a day? balhae? sure as hell not atlantic where they were more likely to get reported.

 

[Merus]

for the sake of arguement, this is who very low population shards hurt:
---the people coming back to the game remembering seeing people, when they no longer see people they leave the game again
---the average player who cant sell goods on the low pop shard because there is no economy, so is forced to either transfer to atlantic or never sell anything
---low pop shards hurt every player in the game because they allow content to be devalued, meaning, if you can easily farm loot / scrolls / items with little to no competition the intrinsic value of those items goes down. Being able to buy goods should be a luxury. healthy gameplay should try to demand the player actually does game content to get those drops. right now in UO we have a system were goods are much more easily bought for extremelely low amounts of gold rather than playing the game to get said items.
---pvp players have no one to pvp with


Im not saying those who enjoy a low-pop environment are wrong for enjoying that, but the reasons i gave above are in fact the ways low-population hurts other players both active, inactive, and on all shards.

In short, its not the issue of whether or not someone enjoys actually playing a highpop or lowpop shard, its the side effects.

1-these people left the game when there was a population. Even with higher population, they are likely to leave again. They do not poses more value in terms of $ to the game than the slow shard player who is happy with their game experience and continues to play and pay.
2-Any players who is unhappy with the economic of their shard has other options already available to remedy the issue. No need to force a change in everyone else.
3-The only element of competition there is for resources, is who controls them. Your argument goes to skill level and suit investment because the content is readily available on any shard to any player. There aren't more "chances" to kill any given mob on a slow shard than there are on a busy shard. Even in Fel the opportunity to farm exists on ATL, it's just a matter of who gets the drops.

 

[Zosimus]

If little Billy was lifting 12 pounds in first grade and by the end of the year he was lifting 70 pounds. How much more can he lift now?

Answer: He is on steroids

What does that mean above that pertains to this subject?

You all need some kind of community steroids to fix the community to be stronger and better before shard mergers can ever be truly discussed. To much "what about me" and not enough "what am I willing to do" thinking.

 

[Smoot]

There aren't more "chances" to kill any given mob on a slow shard than there are on a busy shard. Even in Fel the opportunity to farm exists on ATL, it's just a matter of who gets the drops.

... theres much better chance. 100 percent chance in fact. if theres 10 parties of players wanting to do a medusa, only 1 is allowed in at a time. in this example that 100 percent chance goes down to 10 percent.

 

[Smoot]

You all need some kind of community steroids to fix the community to be stronger and better before shard mergers can ever be truly discussed. To much "what about me" and not enough "what am I willing to do" thinking.

we already have that. the devs solution for the problems being discussed here is EM events, the "steriods" of the game as you put it.

i dont think thats right or good gamplay to rely on that. daily content needs to be worth doing again and low pop shards contribute to it not currently being worth doing.

 

[Andrasta]

A Shard Gate that costs a high amount of gold makes perfect sense. No need to give up any housing or history with this option.

 

[Longtooths]

I’ve read this entire thread and it basically boils down to several camps of people extolling the virtues of everyone believing the way they do. Too often I have seen people that are incapable of considering others opinions and the inability to consider the detriment their ideas might have on others.

The only superlative truth in this whole thread is that every idea will help some and hurt others. Period.

Therefore we can stop arguing the benefits and look to the only other truth that @Kirthag mentioned. Our game is a business, and a business needs to seek funding to survive.

With that in mind, I would love to see ideas that hurt no one, boost subscriptions and make the company more money. The idea being that more money for the company would benefit the playerbase by allowing them to hire more people to fix bugs, develop more content, hire more support. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Smoot]

agree with longtooths. while i enjoy some UO hall banter, the shard merger thing is really not the best option to solve the population problem considering the alternatives and negatives the idea entails.

you all know i think ftp would be good for the games population

in addition to that, there are vast possibilities to revitalize daily game content.
-- very rare deco drops
-- more static rare spawn deco items like what we have currently at the primeval lich spawn
-- rare mounts from champs
-- more desireable rewards from vvv (think hairdyes, skin dyes, special mounts, personalized / named reward wearables for leaderboards)
-- increase content difficulty to make legendaries more needed by the average player
-- revitalization of outdated drops (extra / different stats)
the list goes on and on

i sincerely hope this expansion addresses some of these simple fixes to improve and revitalize daily gameplay to make the content worth doing once again. I hope all in the beta/focus group put their own personal playstyles aside and think about what would be best for the game overall when making suggestions.

 

[Merus]

... theres much better chance. 100 percent chance in fact. if theres 10 parties of players wanting to do a medusa, only 1 is allowed in at a time. in this example that 100 percent chance goes down to 10 percent.

I think up to 3 parties can do Medusa at a time... She is instanced. However, the only factor that really affect the number of Medusas per day that can be done is the efficiency with which she is killed. That factor applies to every mob. How many Medusas or harrowers or naverys that are available to be farmed are a function of how fast each can be killed to re spawn. Does a person on a slow shard have a better chance at instantly being able to find thier particular mob available, yes. But can they cycle as many as a busy shard? No.

For example, 10 people on ATL will kill more Naverys non-stop on ATL than 1 person can do non-stop on Napa. I would wager over a long period of time the individual drop rate would even out.

 

[Merus]

Even if the only discussion that happens is:

I like my way because of this...
No, I like my way because of this...

The discussion is still productive (provided its civil) because it brings to light all the various aspect of how they change would impact the various playstyles in UO. We do not really need to be the arbitrator of who's opinion ultimately is right... That is the Devs job.

 

[Smoot]

I think up to 3 parties can do Medusa at a time... She is instanced. However, the only factor that really affect the number of Medusas per day that can be done is the efficiency with which she is killed. That factor applies to every mob. How many Medusas or harrowers or naverys that are available to be farmed are a function of how fast each can be killed to re spawn. Does a person on a slow shard have a better chance at instantly being able to find thier particular mob available, yes. But can they cycle as many as a busy shard? No.

For example, 10 people on ATL will kill more Naverys non-stop on ATL than 1 person can do non-stop on Napa. I would wager over a long period of time the individual drop rate would even out.

i dont think your getting my point.
currently 27 naveries can be killed at the same time
if there was 1 shard total, only 1 could be killed at a time

in the case of scrolls, if there were 1 shard the likelyhood of being able to even complete a spawn or harrower without fierce competition would be very low. this would cause the value (im not speaking just gold value) of the items gained from these areas of the game to go up, to the point hopefully where it would be worth doing rather than just buying for basically nothing.

 

[Merus]

i dont think your getting my point.
currently 27 naveries can be killed at the same time
if there was 1 shard total, only 1 could be killed at a time

in the case of scrolls, if there were 1 shard the likelyhood of being able to even complete a spawn or harrower without fierce competition would be very low. this would cause the value (im not speaking just gold value) of the items gained from these areas of the game to go up, to the point hopefully where it would be worth doing rather than just buying for basically nothing.

You are correct that in the fact that there are more of any given mob available as is because they are available across multiple shards. My point is this... If there are 27 (arbitrary number) players on at any given moment who want to kill Navery you will end up with roughly the same number of kills whether you put all 27 in one room or put them in 27 different rooms. DPS x number of players says the same. The only variable that would change this is if somehow the total number of players interested in doing the content exceeds the capacity of the game. For the vast majority of content in UO that is not an issue... As many people who want to kill something can go (until you crash the server).

 

[Smoot]

You are correct that in the fact that there are more of any given mob available as is because they are available across multiple shards. My point is this... If there are 27 (arbitrary number) players on at any given moment who want to kill Navery you will end up with roughly the same number of kills whether you put all 27 in one room or put them in 27 different rooms. DPS x number of players says the same. The only variable that would change this is if somehow the total number of players interested in doing the content exceeds the capacity of the game. For the vast majority of content in UO that is not an issue... As many people who want to kill something can go (until you crash the server).

i disagree because theres a respawn timer and becuase loot is then split between players. theres more loot / drops on 27 naveries than 1.

 

[Judas D'arc]

I am not framing an issue and it is 100% a matter of less populated shards. No offense but your semantics and way out of context McDonalds business analogies have done nothing to address what is obviously and inherently wrong with the OP's idea.
What's good for the overall product is keeping current subscribers while at the same time attracting new subscribers. That is irrefutable yet the OP chose to completely ignore/dismiss it.
The plan as put forth by the OP will in no way even guarantee one new subscriber but will 100% for sure cause many current subscribers to quit.
If you were a competing company you couldn't devise a surer way to damage the game.
Given the fact that a large % of current subscribers with means do not want to group on a select one or two shards why would anyone think other former players(quitters)would?

And for the record, I play Atlantic and do not crave privacy of any sorts. But I am experienced enough in game and intelligent enough to realize that many, many others do prefer the quieter aspects of the game.
Lets not forget that some of the most popular aspects of UO are best done in privacy. Things such as house designing/decorating and crafting. I ofc recall when a small group of crafters would hang at the brit forge to sell items but that in no way changes the fact that crafting is best done by yourself in the privacy of your own home where all your resources are amassed and you can make whatever you like. You are not reforging, perfecting and enhancing full suits of armor while standing around a forge in town.
How about taming? Do you want a crowd of other tamers around you when that 4.6 greater dragon spawns or heaven forbid, that blaze cu? I think not.

It's all about how the issue is framed. No one is proposing a shard merger/consolidation just for the sake of doing so. The actual issue is an eroding player base, lack of activity and interaction, and the desire to discuss potential solutions. "No offense", but your reactionary posts have done nothing to address the problem that the original poster is concerned about.

The McDonald's analogy wasn't mine to begin with, but if that's what you choose to take from my posts, so be it.

As for the impact of shard consolidation, maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, but it'll not going to happen so we'll never know for sure. People vote with their dollars, however, and not with message board posts, and I don't think anyone can dispute that UO has some serious need for improvement on that front.

 

[Merus]

i disagree because theres a respawn timer and becuase loot is then split between players. theres more loot / drops on 27 naveries than 1.

There may be some small areas where artificial timers factor in, but overall I think the impact is fairly small.
As far as loot goes, I think it actually works in reverse. While many monsters take a fixed amount of loot and divide it by the number of players, in which case the same number of kills results in the same amount of loot... there are more and more mobs now days that generate loot on a per player basis. Something like Corgul gives a relatively fixed amount of loot per player... so more players actually makes more loot. If that case, the same number of kills would generate more loot if done as a group than individually.

 

[Merus]

It's all about how the issue is framed. No one is proposing a shard merger/consolidation just for the sake of doing so. The actual issue is an eroding player base, lack of activity and interaction, and the desire to discuss potential solutions. "No offense", but your reactionary posts have done nothing to address the problem that the original poster is concerned about.

The McDonald's analogy wasn't mine to begin with, but if that's what you choose to take from my posts, so be it.

As for the impact of shard consolidation, maybe you're right, maybe I'm right, but it'll not going to happen so we'll never know for sure. People vote with their dollars, however, and not with message board posts, and I don't think anyone can dispute that UO has some serious need for improvement on that front.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise posed by the OP...that low shard population is responsible for low population. I have given multiple examples of why I believe that shard mergers do not actually benefit the game as a whole. All things being equal, I believe shard mergers would do more harm than good. In order to stay on topic, I have refrained from discussing other issues.

 

[Lord Frodo]

for the sake of arguement, this is who very low population shards hurt:
---the people coming back to the game remembering seeing people, when they no longer see people they leave the game again

If somebody coming back to UO expects to see the same UO as to when they left are IMHO looking at things with rose colored glasses on. Every game changes no matter what all in different ways and if you are serious about returning then you do your due diligence and see what has changed before you lay down your money. IMHO I do not think any player is really suprised about the population of UO.

---the average player who cant sell goods on the low pop shard because there is no economy, so is forced to either transfer to atlantic or never sell anything

There is an economy on every shard. The problem is because of the search sites and shard shields everybody wants Atl prices for their goods and not what their shard will support. Vendor search is great but IMHO not enough people use it to set prices for their shard. Also lower population shards do a lot of trades the old fashion way, by word of mouth. Yes I have shard shields and use them all the time. Yes I buy and sell items on many shards but the one thing I do not do is expect to get Atl prices on other shards or I would never sell anything. I also do not pay Atl prices on other shards. I bring back supplies to Baja and have given, yes given items away more times than I care to count. There is a lot more to do in UO than there was even 5 years ago so yes people pick which things they want to do and which things they are willing to pay for, this is no different than RL.

---low pop shards hurt every player in the game because they allow content to be devalued, meaning, if you can easily farm loot / scrolls / items with little to no competition the intrinsic value of those items goes down. Being able to buy goods should be a luxury. healthy gameplay should try to demand the player actually does game content to get those drops. right now in UO we have a system were goods are much more easily bought for extremelely low amounts of gold rather than playing the game to get said items.

Content is not devalued at all, if it were not for some of the farmers (i do not mean BOTs) on other shards the Atl prices would be even higher, it is called supply and demand so the few goods you have the more they are worth. This goes along with the answer above too. Why should I have to go get everything for myself to do what I want to do, that defeats the purpose of having an economy in the first place. If everyone were self sufficient then we would have no economy because nothing would be sold or bought. I really don't understand why you think it should be a luxury when your main point is to boost the economy. If it were not for the other shards and shard shields then atl would be a ghost town because it would price itself out of existence and people would move to other shards so they could get their goods they need to play their game.

---pvp players have no one to pvp with

IMHO PvP has done more to hurt PvP than anything UO has ever done. I have been here many, many years and have seen True PvP go from people trying to help others be better fighters to what you hear every day on the Gen Chat Chan. You want to see a reason why people stay away just go listen to all the BS, childish trash talk going on in Gen Chat. Strange thing is I go to Seige and I don't hear all the little children like I do on Atl, why is that. PvPers need to clean their own house before they complain about anything done to them, they are their own worst enemies and do UO more harm than good. Please do not go this road because I remember honorable PvPers from days of old (not trash talking PKers) that wanted the fight and were willing to teach. Todays so called PvPers are nothing more than geared out PKers with all their childish trash talk. There is more so called childish trash talking PvP in gen chat than real PvP in UO. Now if you were a returning player or a new player just starting and all you heard was the BS I am sure you would say "Sign me up this is just the kind of BS I am looking for in a game", I think not. Go to Seige, there are people willing to help you get started or go to Atl and listen to all the children, your choice.


Some of the biggest complaints you hear is returning/new players can not afford to get back in/get in the game because it costs so much and all a shard merger would do is drive up prices even more due to supply and demand. Fewer shards providing goods and supplies for everybody in UO would increase prices not bring them down, this is basic econ 101 or simple greed which ever you pick. Shard mergers would also make price fixing much easier because you wouldn't have as many stores to watch or buy from. RMT would love a shard merger that way their goods would be worth a lot more. UO house sellers would love a shard merger because their houses will be worth more.

The people IMHO that will benefit the most from a shard merger are the RMTs. Fewer resources mean higher prices means they sell out and get out of Dodge(UO) with their cash before UO truly dies. IMHO I question why people want a shard merger so bad, is it really for community, even small towns have a community and IMHO a better one than a big city (yes I have traveled all over the world and have seen a lot) or is it just another way to try and inflate prices so they can sell all their resources for gold/cash. I am not saying this is what you or the OP are trying to do or back RMT but in all honesty you need to ask who really benefits the most from a shard merger in the long run and why people try to push them so hard, surely not the casual player or the person playing UO for fun.

 

[Tina Small]

Some of the biggest complaints you hear is returning/new players can not afford to get back in/get in the game because it costs so much and all a shard merger would do is drive up prices even more due to supply and demand. Fewer shards providing goods and supplies for everybody in UO would increase prices not bring them down, this is basic econ 101 or simple greed which ever you pick. Shard mergers would also make price fixing much easier because you wouldn't have as many stores to watch or buy from. RMT would love a shard merger that way their goods would be worth a lot more. UO house sellers would love a shard merger because their houses will be worth more.

The people IMHO that will benefit the most from a shard merger are the RMTs. Fewer resources mean higher prices means they sell out and get out of Dodge(UO) with their cash before UO truly dies. IMHO I question why people want a shard merger so bad, is it really for community, even small towns have a community and IMHO a better one than a big city (yes I have traveled all over the world and have seen a lot) or is it just another way to try and inflate prices so they can sell all their resources for gold/cash. I am not saying this is what you or the OP are trying to do or back RMT but in all honesty you need to ask who really benefits the most from a shard merger in the long run and why people try to push them so hard, surely not the casual player or the person playing UO for fun.

I've been wondering these exact same things myself regarding the push for shard mergers.

 

[Smoot]

If somebody coming back to UO expects to see the same UO as to when they left are IMHO looking at things with rose colored glasses on. Every game changes no matter what all in different ways and if you are serious about returning then you do your due diligence and see what has changed before you lay down your money. IMHO I do not think any player is really suprised about the population of UO.

agreed, but they should expect to at least see a few other players as this is an mmo. some shards there can be 0 people even at the bank at times. this would be the case with a merger. you said all games change, one of changes is mergers. many games have done this to accomadate a changing playerbase.

There is an economy on every shard.

there are not even basic arties for sale on every shard. i also know of many players who keep 0 spending gold on their home shard because theres nothing to buy. i would not call this anything close to a functional economy

Content is not devalued at all, if it were not for some of the farmers (i do not mean BOTs) on other shards the Atl prices would be even higher

prices should be much higher than they are now. to the point where it forces a player to actually do the content themselves. if you take into consideration inflation, prices are on average only 20 percent of what they were at the height of UO.

IMHO PvP has done more to hurt PvP than anything UO has ever done.

the 10 - 15 percent of players who actively pvp are what gives value to almost all of the new loot the devs have designed. if it werent for pvpers looting in pvm would be essentially not worth doing at all. in short, pvp dies mean pvm dies.

Some of the biggest complaints you hear is returning/new players can not afford to get back in/get in the game because it costs so much and all a shard merger would do is drive up prices even more due to supply and demand.

its extemely easy to make gold in UO now. so easy in fact because of the overflow of items (caused in part by easy farming on low pop shards) Returning players with this complaint would benifit not from lower prices, but if actually doing content would yield them higher prices for what they sell. Ideally if you want a content-driven game, very little should actually be bought. and what is bought is a luxury at very high prices. In short, returning players and active players alike should be forced to do content rather than given the ease of purchasing everying they need for extremely cheap prices driven down by low competition and easy gameplay. If scrolls had kept value with gold inflation a 120 mage should cost 150m, a crimson the same. this is the coparative value people were paying for items at UOs height, and at the time it was worth it for the average player to actually do game content because cost was limiting to what they could easily buy.

Again, the point of raising prices is so it gets to the point where most people DO NOT buy these things, but rather actually play the game themselves to get these items.

 

[Merus]

agreed, but they should expect to at least see a few other players as this is an mmo. some shards there can be 0 people even at the bank at times. this would be the case with a merger. you said all games change, one of changes is mergers. many games have done this to accomadate a changing playerbase.


there are not even basic arties for sale on every shard. i also know of many players who keep 0 spending gold on their home shard because theres nothing to buy. i would not call this anything close to a functional economy



prices should be much higher than they are now. to the point where it forces a player to actually do the content themselves. if you take into consideration inflation, prices are on average only 20 percent of what they were at the height of UO.


the 10 - 15 percent of players who actively pvp are what gives value to almost all of the new loot the devs have designed. if it werent for pvpers looting in pvm would be essentially not worth doing at all. in short, pvp dies mean pvm dies.



its extemely easy to make gold in UO now. so easy in fact because of the overflow of items (caused in part by easy farming on low pop shards) Returning players with this complaint would benifit not from lower prices, but if actually doing content would yield them higher prices for what they sell. Ideally if you want a content-driven game, very little should actually be bought. and what is bought is a luxury at very high prices. In short, returning players and active players alike should be forced to do content rather than given the ease of purchasing everying they need for extremely cheap prices driven down by low competition and easy gameplay. If scrolls had kept value with gold inflation a 120 mage should cost 150m, a crimson the same. this is the coparative value people were paying for items at UOs height, and at the time it was worth it for the average player to actually do game content because cost was limiting to what they could easily buy.

Again, the point of raising prices is so it gets to the point where most people DO NOT buy these things, but rather actually play the game themselves to get these items.

Again with an oxymoron... The economy is broken because on most shards there is nothing to buy. We should restrict content availability so that prices will be so high that they don't want to buy, but would rather do the content themselves, except we have restricted the availability of the content.

This line of logic doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I've been wondering these exact same things myself regarding the push for shard mergers.

AMEN Sometimes you really have to ask what is the real reason people ask for things in UO.