If UO was to cut its shards in half and keep the most populated shards running would you still play the game under the following conditions:
1. Full house , items transfer , wont lose anything.
2. No cost to you
3. Housing will be in new areas( new expansion?) or areas you cant currently place ( T2A, Ill ) or in specialized areas (player run towns).
Any other thoughts?
1. No way of doing this, period. It would be like merging Tram/Fel, too much overlap in housing to do it. Ever had that facet-bug where you see two houses intersecting? Yeah.
2. I like where my houses are, anywhere else would be a "cost" to me. My castle's located in a quiet, spawn free area which suits me, my customers and visitors. My 18x18 events house is in a prime Umbra location for convenience. I can't see having to merge somehow improving on these locations. Having to move all the decoration and vendors from my museum and shop would be impossible, and I wouldn't entrust EA with transferring a bag of fertile dirt, let alone all the stuff I have worked toward and built up.
3. Moving housing to a new area would just be a disaster, especially T2A which has next no level ground on which to place houses. Another ridiculous land rush like the opening of Malas. Scripters would get the top locations, end of story. Player-run towns already exist and have done for years, with histories and facilities built up over time. Forcing everyone to move would wipe all that away.
4. Where would you suggest Oceania merge? Asian shards are the nearest, but are almost entirely Japanese/Korean-speaking. Everywhere else, including Asia, is too laggy.
Until you put names to this idea, ie: which shards merge with whom and who gets housing priority, then have the people involved - especially those disadvantaged by the merge - agreeing to it, it'll only ever be a half-baked concept.
