Ways to bring veterans back to UO...

[bjornef]

why is that you kinda get what you pay for

i have closed my acc sevral times and i bean as happy with the less time on my acc added evry time

then again i was not foresed to close it and how would mytic know if it was a forsed or not they sykic all of a sudden or not

let it be i am happy so shood they be

i am still 91 month but my acc say started 2000 so i guess not much i have lost realy

 

[Berethrain]

The current system is fine. If you paid from 1997 to 2000 then quit and started again in 2004 and kept paying you should be rewarded for 9 years.

I think the current system is fine based off the number of paid months contributed to the amount of time accrued for vet rewards, not including inactive time.

If this isn't the case, I have some emails to make.

 

[bjornef]

i would complain if they all of a sudden gave all acc same benefit as me with out paying then god knows how many 13 year old acc would be selling to new players

 

[Berethrain]

i would complain if they all of a sudden gave all acc same benefit as me with out paying then god knows how many 13 year old acc would be selling to new players

I agree, but not accruing time for vet rewards while inactive isn't a negative consequence either.

 

[eekamouse]

I had a really long reply to this thread ... instead I will say I am watching with rapt attention

I don't understand. Please elaborate

 

[bjornef]

i have payed for 91 months and i have given away all my wet rewards i dont care if they give out them its not that its just i payed 12,99 a month for my age and so shood all others do 13,99 last month so i guess price gone up

 

[omgmir]

my wet rewards

Now those are the good rewards, where can I get some o dem?

 

[Berethrain]

Originally Posted by bjornef
my wet rewards

Now those are the good rewards, where can I get some o dem?

From a bottle of lotion and a box of tissues.

 

[bjornef]

on euro they seem to give them away any way so cant be that hard to obtain any thing if you got your harth on gettting it atlest i never had a problem getting it if i so desire
desiring it is on the other hand tuff

 

[Berethrain]

on euro they seem to give them away any way so cant be that hard to obtain any thing if you got your harth on

Language barriers can be so much fun.


Either way, back to incentives:



One I'd be happy with is if they allowed 5 chars on Siege.

 

[bjornef]

i dont even use the onei got there why would i want 5 hum maby if they added 20 only on that chard they all would be happy and trow away all there soul stones

 

[Berethrain]

i dont even use the onei got there why would i want 5 hum maby if they added 20 only on that chard they all would be happy and trow away all there soul stones

It wasn't really a question of what you wanted. You already pay to play.

At least having several character slots would allow more flexibility on Siege. This isn't a bad thing.

 

[bjornef]

then get 60 soul stones like the rest of the players there and play as you wish

 

[Berethrain]

then get 60 soul stones like the rest of the players there and play as you wish

That's just dumb.

 

[Lord Frodo]

So we should punish them because they stopped paying. Even if it was something totally out of their control that caused it. Got it.

Yes, reward brand loyalty. I'm all for that, but don't reward one group in a manner that is unfair to someone who was forced to quit for a time because of something beyond their control.

I hope you are joking, because if your not I want some of whatever you are smoking.

Lets take your idea to the max. Player started in yr1 and plays for 6mo. Now he comes back and under your reward system he get his Skills raised 20 points and all those unchosen rewards. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, giving someone the same rewards as someone that has paid 12+ years.

I repeat, I want some of whatever you are smoking.

 

[Black Sun]

No, Popps was purposing that accounts that have been open since the day it was created with no break in service get some extra bonus because they have been paying for so long. Under his system you could have 2 players who have paid for 9 years of game time. Player A has 9 years straight. 2001 through now. While Player B has 9 years. 4 years, 3 years the account was closed, and then reopened and kept up for 5 more years. A total of nine paid months.

Popps thinks (at least that's what I take away from his posts) that Player A should be rewarded because he has no gaps in his service, while Player B shouldn't get anything despite the fact that they're both 9 year vets.

The time you paid is the time you should be credited for. Gaps or not. I'm not saying every account created in 97 should get 12 year rewards even if they were closed in 99. My account was created in 2000, but it was inactive for 3 years, as a result my age shows as 84 months. 7 years. Now, somebody who came along in 2003 and has had their account open for 7 years. Popps thinks they should be rewarded extra because they didn't close their account like I did. I say we are both 7 years and therefore should be treated the same.

Just because someone has never taken a break does not mean they are entitled to something extra.

 

[Kallie Pigeon]

Bringing veterans back is not as important as bringing veterans money back. I mean they can offer a free trial period OK so what they do that often enough allready they need to get players back who are willing to pay to play. Maybe they can offer to purchase an upgrade to their account that is partially upgraded or equal or almost equal to that of a player who has been paying and playing depending on the amount they pay for it. So it's not free but they can get the benefits equal (or almost equal) to others for a fee. I dunno just thinking ...

 

[Black Sun]

If they want Vets to come back they need to fix the bug/exploit/cheats/etc. that made them leave in the first place. Simple as that. Give away all the shiny pixels you want. If someone comes back and finds scripters and speedhackers are still running rampant, bugs that are years old and all the same issues that were unresolved when they left, they'll simply cancel their account again.

You can't keep treating symptoms, you need to cure the disease at some point.

 

[Lord Frodo]

If they want Vets to come back they need to fix the bug/exploit/cheats/etc. that made them leave in the first place.

You can't keep treating symptoms, you need to cure the disease at some point.

You get a big QFT

 

[The_Black_Cat]

I'm a vet... originally was in the beta and stuck with it until shortly after introduction of Trammel with UOR. From there it was constant joining/leaving between 3rd Dawn, LBR and what ever else came along. I canceled my subscription (this run active since 2007 I believe) a couple months ago when I realized I never really played, and only wasted money to keep my house in Magincia up an running...

The thing is, every time I join up and give it a go, I don't find the same appeal it once had. Doesn't "feel" like UO, which to me is anything T2A and below. For me, I think the item based gameplay and Trammel are what ruined it.

So if they were to implement some Classic UO shard with old style gameplay/world, I'd be back in a heartbeat. Anything else isn't worth coming back to.

 

[Guido_LS]

Ummm... the time you pay *IS* the time you are rewarded for... I just got my 7 year options 3 months ago on my oldest account, and 2 year rewards on my *mule* account last month... prior to December, both accounts had been closed close to 3 years...

 

[tenduil]

2) A classic shard or possibly some kind of "hybrid" rule set. I think this has been beat to death, but one or two shards (at least) would fill up quickly, if done correctly.

This.

 

[Zosimus]

This is how mythic does it with their other games. Say you were a former player of warhammer or DaoC. To entice you to come back they give you one month free playing time when you renewed your subscription. Not sure if they still do it but I never hear UO having this. Plus, why reward people who quit and come back with a free month when you have hardcore players that have paid all the time. Where is their free month for being loyal? Something stinks in Denmark in that thinking.


Giving items to entice isnt going to work to get vets to come back. Classic shard will help to a point but it depends on the devs what they determine classic and we all agree that its classic shard.

 

[HD2300]

1. Tram only shard. Fel only shard.

2. Allow speeders, 3rd party scripting programs. Do checksums on worldmaps, and put in an effective server side cap. Ban for life unattended scripting.

 

[popps]

No one should have negative consequences for any reason if their account goes inactive. It's just bad business and a bad idea.

What about house decay?

...and be careful how you answer

House Decay has been another brilliant idea which has helped, I am convinced, to keep Ultima Online going for so many years.

House Decay along with the Veteran Rewards Program are all very good reasons which might tip the mind of a player wanting to take a break away from the game to instead maintain it as active.

This, brings much needed revenues to Ultima Online.

Most importantly, these revenues are no "spike" revenues like one time sales of tokens might be, but they are solid and stable subscription sales on which, over a period of time, one CAN make development plans for the game.

This is why subscriptions are way better than one time sales of tokens.

Money is money, wherever it may come from, but subscription is better money than sale of tokens, IMHO, because it allows for planning since one can study the influx of resources that is steadily there, month after month, and know what is possible to be done and what not with that influx of resources.

Sales of tokens is surely very nice, but it is a bonus, something to use for extra content, a new addition, whatever.

Never EVER, I think, the sales of tokens should harm in any way the solid monthly subscriptions and, that is why I think the Veteran Rewards Program should never be harmed by handing out veteran rewards to returning players having less active age than what the reward requires. Doing this would make the Veteran rewards Program moot and pointless and take away another good reason for players to maintain their accounts as active for short periods of time and so, provide much needed and valuable subscription resources to the game.

 

[popps]

I had a really long reply to this thread ... instead I will say I am watching with rapt attention

I really hope that you guys will be able to pull the magic trick that brings Ultima Online to a new life and brings its subscriptions levels to new heights...

That would be some credit for the Development Team which was capable to revive a 13 years old game with so much charisma as Ultima Online.......

If there is a game out there that deserves it, it is Ultima Online, IMHO.

Best wishes of good work and of brilliant ideas in the best interest of "THE" game..........

 

[popps]

If I were in that situation it would be like EA saying "Sorry you lost your job and couldn't afford UO for 6 months. See Richie Rich over there? The guy who's paid for 144 months straight on his father's credit card but has done nothing but play WoW and badmouth UO for the last 3 years? Yeah, well for being such a good customer we're giving him some nice reward. But you had hard times and couldn't afford to be a good customer, so you're not getting jack. Sorry about your luck. Maybe next time you'll think twice before putting needs before wants."

I said that I am OK with rewarding returning players to UO. Only, NOT at the expense of the Veteran Rewards Program.

Keep the 2 separate

There is a TONS of possible other ways to attract returning players to UO, not necessarily it has to take away the Veteran Rewards Program from those players who did an effort to support the game over these 13 years by paying for the subscription whether they played or not.

The current system is fine. If you paid from 1997 to 2000 then quit and started again in 2004 and kept paying you should be rewarded for 9 years. The same reward as the guy who started back in 2001 and has been playing 9 years straight. He's not any better than you because he never took a break.

Hold it there.

If you are talking about cumulating separate active periods then I am OK with it.

Like if one over 13 years has played 2 years, then another 1, then another 3 and in between them the account was unsubscribed, the TOTAL active time for that account would currently be 2 + 1 + 3 = 6 years. That would be a 6 years "active" Vet Age account even if it was originally registered in 1997.

But this is the system we currently have, right ?

 

[popps]

Just because someone has never taken a break does not mean they are entitled to something extra.

My apologies, I understood something entirely different.

I thought the idea was to "waive" the unsubscribed months (those where subscription had not been paid...) to returning players and validate only the registration time for the returning account.

So, for example, a September 1997 account which only was active for 6 months over these 13 years would now count just as well as an account who has been paying all along these 13 years.........

I was opposing to this.

I am very fine with cumulating separate active periods on an account.

If a player over 13 years has paid for, say, a total of 6 years, that should count as a 6 years "active" veteran account regardless of when it was registered.

But I thought this is the system we already have right now.

It ain't so ?

 

[popps]

Bringing veterans back is not as important as bringing veterans money back.

Oh yes, it sure does is, IMHO.

Bringing veteran players back for an extended period of time is by far more important than just getting a few bucks here and here from temporary sales of this or that token.

Subscriptions is what allows a Developing Team to "plan" for new content and changes to the game.

So, having a steady pattern of monthly revenues means being able to sit down at the table and know, with a good approximation, that for the time needed for development to carry on on a given project the game will have the needed resources to carry it on.

One time sales are surely nice, but they do not even get close to the benefit for planning that monthly subscriptions have.

 

[popps]

I'm a vet... originally was in the beta and stuck with it until shortly after introduction of Trammel with UOR. From there it was constant joining/leaving between 3rd Dawn, LBR and what ever else came along. I canceled my subscription (this run active since 2007 I believe) a couple months ago when I realized I never really played, and only wasted money to keep my house in Magincia up an running...

The thing is, every time I join up and give it a go, I don't find the same appeal it once had. Doesn't "feel" like UO, which to me is anything T2A and below. For me, I think the item based gameplay and Trammel are what ruined it.

So if they were to implement some Classic UO shard with old style gameplay/world, I'd be back in a heartbeat. Anything else isn't worth coming back to.

Over the years I saw several players I played with, leave the game for those reasons.

They had enough of the increasing "itemization" of UO or they could not stand any longer the scripting, the hacking, the cheating.

If they ever bring up a shard with the old style game play, though, they better do it very right because it would be sad to see another good chance to revive UO getting wasted.

First get rid from the game of scripting, hacking, cheating, and then design the new shard with no transfers allowed from other shards so that no influx from the outside can mess up with it.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

My apologies, I understood something entirely different.

I thought the idea was to "waive" the unsubscribed months (those where subscription had not been paid...) to returning players and validate only the registration time for the returning account.

So, for example, a September 1997 account which only was active for 6 months over these 13 years would now count just as well as an account who has been paying all along these 13 years.........

I was opposing to this.

I am very fine with cumulating separate active periods on an account.

If a player over 13 years has paid for, say, a total of 6 years, that should count as a 6 years "active" veteran account regardless of when it was registered.

But I thought this is the system we already have right now.

It ain't so ?

That is the system we have currently, I think black sun either mis-understood you or the original post you quoted, both are very easy to accomplish. (I did not read your original post so I have no idea what actually happened but I am fairly sure he got confused somewhere along the line)

 

[Unsatisfied]

Classic shard = the return of uo vets.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Popps thinks (at least that's what I take away from his posts) that Player A should be rewarded because he has no gaps in his service, while Player B shouldn't get anything despite the fact that they're both 9 year vets.

The time you paid is the time you should be credited for. Gaps or not. I'm not saying every account created in 97 should get 12 year rewards even if they were closed in 99. My account was created in 2000, but it was inactive for 3 years, as a result my age shows as 84 months. 7 years. Now, somebody who came along in 2003 and has had their account open for 7 years. Popps thinks they should be rewarded extra because they didn't close their account like I did. I say we are both 7 years and therefore should be treated the same.

Just because someone has never taken a break does not mean they are entitled to something extra.

You should only be credited for the months you pay for, the veteran rewards should continue to be mostly ornamental in nature and not actually needed for gameplay.

The skill cap however is an important part of gameplay, so it should never be applied to account age.

 

[Lord Chaos]

I had a really long reply to this thread ... instead I will say I am watching with rapt attention

New players: Don't have unobtainable things that for some can be quite important to gameplay, the stat bonus is somewhat bad, but 2 years for 20 skill cap extra is far too much in todays MMO world, in the span of 2 years something like WoW has released tons of content and expansion, so the bonus is not going to keep people playing, but it will discourage them from doing so.

Returning players:

1 - Stop having so much limited content that they feel they've missed and can never experience or even own. Its very discouraging to read up on UO in preperation for returning, only to find out you missed event X, Y and Z which gave very good items and rewards. Everything that comes out at events or limited time happenings should be permanently available through something else, akin to the [Replica] system. Keeps the originals rare and the new ones more common.

2 - Veteran shard...if anyone could ever agree on what system it should run under.

3 - Much better ingame help or make links to all UO community sites UOForums, Stratics, UOGuides, etc.

4 - Better ingame guiding as to where you can go with things, like if you click a skill, you should have the option of learning more about it and it pointing to trainers, then the trainer should provide you training options and ways to make money and train with that skill. (Like heartwood quests, hunting areas, etc.)

 

[Llewen]

This is from a player that was away for two years and came back not too long ago. At no point have I felt discouraged because I missed some event and the chance to win some special item. Imbuing really does take care of most of that, and there are so many special items out there that you couldn't possibly use all of them on a suit, or even on several suits, and there are no items that are truly indispensable.

 

[Fink]

Over the years I saw several players I played with, leave the game for those reasons.

They had enough of the increasing "itemization" of UO or they could not stand any longer the scripting, the hacking, the cheating.

Yes, I totally agree popps.

There are many reasons cited by people as to why they leave the game. The plain fact is they leave because they've exceeded their threshold of diminishing returns. Why they choose to grandstand their dissatisfaction after deciding not to play anymore is a mystery. It's a little late to be bringing it up.

Why they don't just graciously and quietly slip away is also a mystery. If they're leaving and no longer supporting the game financially, surely their opinion no longer counts. Come to that, it was hardly worth anything while they were here, at least in the grand scheme of things. None of us can claim a direct line to the UO gods. Except for Ahuaeyjnkxs, obviously.

 

[Violence]

I consider myself a veteran if I may say so. What brought me back was nothing of what you mention, none of that ever could. Special mounts, dyes, items, skills.. We've seen it all and in fact Ultima Online is now more than ever ridden with items(not such a bad move given what direction Ultima Online is taking) that do not have special requirements.

A "Classic" shard would bring back some people but even then cheats would quickly mire it. More likely, those who already play would migrate there and that would be it. It's good they aren't even considering it for any time soon, if I was EA I would take care of other issues first, then advertise a Classic shard as a way for the new-comers to experience Britannia the way veterans did.

And I'm very skeptical about EA's "Movement" improvements and anti-cheat vows(seriously, by now I really DO NOT BELIEVE it will ever happen and you shouldn't blame me), in fact more than ever. They've simply cried "Wolf!" too many times.

But back to the point I think I am one of those special cases, it's just that I want to PVP a little, UO-style, just as some other veteran would like to get back to gardening and house customization a la UO. There's just a feel that no other game will ever give us old players.

All I'm saying is, from time to time veterans WILL have a taste of Ultima but making them stay isn't going to happen and shouldn't be viewed as important. We're over-rated as a player base either way, better to focus on bringing in and keeping happy new players. Trust me when I say this, they are not trying to improve movement or convince us cheating will be taken care of, nor introducing new mechanics, items and systems to bring 10-20 people who just can't move on 100%, even if I hate to admit being one of those people.
They do it for the new guys and girls.

As for me, of course my new passion to PVP -- the way I've grown so accustomed to for a decade and more before any other game -- will pass as soon as I face the first cheaters and I'll once more close my account, I have no illusions.

Well then, sorry for this text brick. Just felt like expressing my point of view.

 

[Llewen]

This is from a player that was away for two years and came back not too long ago. At no point have I felt discouraged because I missed some event and the chance to win some special item. Imbuing really does take care of most of that, and there are so many special items out there that you couldn't possibly use all of them on a suit, or even on several suits, and there are no items that are truly indispensable.

What you do do though if you make special items common and easy to obtain, or get rid of all the one time special event items, is rob players of that wonderful buzz you get when you do get your grubby little pixels on something that is truly rare, or special. And there are so many of those items out there that anyone who plays the game for more than a month or two will get the opportunity to own something that gives them that little buzz.

 

[Llewen]

You really want to get veterans back? Here's how you do it:

1. Advertising. Most people that played UO for any length of time really do have good memories associated with that experience, if they didn't, they wouldn't have kept playing as long as they did. They just need a nudge that will remind them. Gamers need to know that UO is still alive and well.

2. Get boxed product into game stores. This really is another form of advertising, and it is effective. If you want old players to return, they need to be reminded about the good times they spent in UO, and most gamers that I know love visiting game stores.

And the side benefit of advertising is that it will also net new players.

 

[Unsatisfied]

A "Classic" shard would bring back some people but even then cheats would quickly mire it. More likely, those who already play would migrate there and that would be it. It's good they aren't even considering it for any time soon, if I was EA I would take care of other issues first, then advertise a Classic shard as a way for the new-comers to experience Britannia the way veterans did.

I am one of the biggest supporters of the classic shard idea, its my sole reason for being on these forums tbh... But with that being said I do actually agree with you on one point. EA should take care of the issues of scripters/cheats before putting in a classic shard, or else it will just get flooded when the doors are opened by scripters farming and the honest players wont stand a chance in the econemy and the shard will fail. Believe me I want nothing else but this shard to happen. But I want it done right. If its done it WILL bring back vets.

 

[Surgeries]

Estimates - yes.

Hard numbers - no.


Any number anyone quotes here will be immediately shouted down by AoS/Tram fanbois...so don't bother.

No...that's not true.

A person can say 1,000,000,000+ are playing Free Shards.

How many people play Free FB games? How many people play any free online game, as compared to the Paying ones?

That's the REAL question...not whether or not the people playing Free Shards will translate at whatever percentage to $12 a month folks, instead of the zero they currently pay.

Because honestly...I doubt that even if the people playing free UO had a chance to pay $12, when they have what they want for free...well...

A person doesn't have to look very far for an objective answer, for sure.

In all the elapsed time since Cal carelessly mentioned that they were looking at doing a Classic Shard...not one peep. Not one at all, that I have seen.

Now...perhaps they are feverishly working from behind the scenes...reading the other thread breathlessly...trying to make everything just right for you folks...

Or...maybe you are doing what people have done since about 2000...ask for no Trammel, and a Classic Shard, when there isn't even a glimmer of one on the horizon, at all, other than about 12 words from the Producer. So...then came Siege...the "Classic Shard" of the day...that hasn't worked out so well. I guess it's difficult to please all the people all the time.

Once they look at Siege and Mugen, it becomes pretty obvious that from a revenue standpoint, the outlook for a heavily resourced and Beta'd Classic Shard could be bleak, perhaps.

So...fanbois like me wouldn't say the numbers are wrong in how many play Free Shards. I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

It's the logic that all those folks...or even a large percentage...or even a pretty big percentage...would come back to start paying for what they get free right now. And, that they would stay long enough, if they did come, to recover the cost of building out such a shard.

I am no expert statistician, of course, but it isn't a large leap of logic to go from Dead Fel and Dead Siege to Dead Classic Shard.

Really...it's not. There could be billions of people waiting to play a Classic Shard...I will not debate that fact.

I will debate until the cows come home on the viability of producing a shard that enough people will like, continue to like it once they started playing it, and would pay to play.

I spoke personally with one of the original developers of UO...FertBert, and I was clearly told that resurrecting that code would take a lot more than a bit of work, and that was like 6 years ago or something. I doubt it has gotten any easier since.

Anyway...I digress...sorry about that. It is likely the Holier than Thou attitude of people that call people that enjoy playing in Trammel a "Fanboi" and discounting any less than optimistic challenge to "Hard Numbers" as a "Shout Down" that will preclude success of a classic shard more than anything else, in my opinion.

But in that I could be wrong as well.

Maybe you and your Go Get Em Attitude will have them lined up in a queue, waiting to get in. Maybe you can force a Classic Shard, with the help of the other 6 persistent posters in the other thread...good luck!

 

[popps]

A "Classic" shard would bring back some people but even then cheats would quickly mire it. More likely, those who already play would migrate there and that would be it. It's good they aren't even considering it for any time soon, if I was EA I would take care of other issues first, then advertise a Classic shard as a way for the new-comers to experience Britannia the way veterans did.

I am one of the biggest supporters of the classic shard idea, its my sole reason for being on these forums tbh... But with that being said I do actually agree with you on one point. EA should take care of the issues of scripters/cheats before putting in a classic shard, or else it will just get flooded when the doors are opened by scripters farming and the honest players wont stand a chance in the econemy and the shard will fail. Believe me I want nothing else but this shard to happen. But I want it done right. If its done it WILL bring back vets.

I agree with the need to first get rid of scripting, hacking cheating before any other shard omes up.

But I am also concerned that a new, classic shard besides attracting new or returning players, it could also attract existing players from current shards thus emtying them out more.

To avoid emptying the current shards even further, besides not allowing transfers to the new shard I think it is necessary to allow there separate housing.

That is, putting up a house on the new, classic shard will not force decay wo whatever other house that account may hold on another shard.

This, to allow the player to be able to play both the new, classic shard and the old other shard where that account has housing.

This to prevent the other shards to empty out for good because of the new, classic shard....

If players can keep a foothold in those shards (their house), they will keep going back from time to time and never really empty that shard out.

Otherwise, once they will put up a house on the new, classic shard, chances are they will not go back to the their originary shard where they once used to play.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I am no expert statistician, of course, but it isn't a large leap of logic to go from Dead Fel and Dead Siege to Dead Classic Shard.

You cannot accurately equate modern Fel, and modern Siege, with Classic UO.

Both are tainted by AoS first of all. Siege has always been a different animal, by design, and modern Fel is empty because players on the 25 shards that have Fel have Trammel as an option.

You are overlooking the fact that a Pre-AoS shard, that was a Fel-only ruleset, would offer something unique...without the option of no-risk game play in Trammel.

Really...it's not. There could be billions of people waiting to play a Classic Shard...I will not debate that fact.

Of course you won't debate it...because you have decided that you are a fan of the current system. That's wonderful for you. You have 24 non-Siege/Mugen shards that cater specifically to your risk-free playstyle. Enjoy them. But why be concerned with what might happen on 1 out of 27 shards? Nothing about a Fel-only/Pre-AoS shard would directly affect you. You will see it on the list, but nothing would force you to log into it...nothing.

It is likely the Holier than Thou attitude of people that call people that enjoy playing in Trammel a "Fanboi" and discounting any less than optimistic challenge to "Hard Numbers" as a "Shout Down" that will preclude success of a classic shard more than anything else, in my opinion.

First...if you are a fan of something, an outspoken fan...like yourself, then yes...you qualify as a 'fanboi' in my book. I am fangirl of a Classic Shard. I freely admit it.

Second...I agree...there are NO hard numbers as to how many people play on Free Shards, so I think that those numbers are pretty meaningless in any discussion such as this. But I have seen people make claims as to the number of players on these shards, only to see Tram/AoS fanbois step in to discredit those people...for no real reason other than the fact that they somehow feel threatened by the thought of a Classic Shard.

Maybe you can force a Classic Shard, with the help of the other 6 persistent posters in the other thread...good luck!

And I thank you for your vote of confidence...

...fanboi

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

But I am also concerned that a new, classic shard besides attracting new or returning players, it could also attract existing players from current shards thus emtying them out more.

If that is the will of the players...so be it. Let the people play the playstyle they enjoy.

If a Classic Shard is a huge success, then perhaps it would be a clear message to the Devs and Producers that the current shards need to be changed.

If a Classic Shard is not wildly successful, you have nothing to worry about.

To avoid emptying the current shards even further, besides not allowing transfers to the new shard I think it is necessary to allow there separate housing.

That is, putting up a house on the new, classic shard will not force decay wo whatever other house that account may hold on another shard.

This, to allow the player to be able to play both the new, classic shard and the old other shard where that account has housing.

I agree, to an extent...but I think because a Classic Shard would not have Trammel and Malas, that housing space would be in short supply. I would suggest something more like, you can place a house on the Classic Shard, and you have 30 days to decide if you want to keep it. This would be a ONE TIME thing per account. If you decided to keep the Classic Shard house, any other houses you have on other shards should fall.

Otherwise, once they will put up a house on the new, classic shard, chances are they will not go back to the their originary shard where they once used to play.

That might happen. It might not. It depends entirely on the preferences of the players...as it should.

 

[UOKaiser]

LoL.You know classic shard means the old way of gaining skill right? Cows,cats and dogs all the way. It would take you a few years to get to 7xgm. I hope all of you are ready to do that again. I sure wouldn't go through that horror again.It was fun once but that was then this is now. To redo it again heh naw.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

It would take you a few years to get to 7xgm.

I would enjoy every second of it...because it would mean something again.

 

[Berethrain]

Maybe you and your Go Get Em Attitude will have them lined up in a queue, waiting to get in. Maybe you can force a Classic Shard, with the help of the other 6 persistent posters in the other thread...good luck!

Lol.

I agree with the majority of your post.

 

[Llewen]

But I am also concerned that a new, classic shard besides attracting new or returning players, it could also attract existing players from current shards thus emtying them out more.

If that is the will of the players...so be it. Let the people play the playstyle they enjoy.

If a Classic Shard is a huge success, then perhaps it would be a clear message to the Devs and Producers that the current shards need to be changed.

I don't think popps needs to worry about a classic shard emptying the regular shards. Those that enjoy that playstyle are either trying vainly to find it on Siege, are playing free shards, or are playing something else all together.

Morgana and others have managed to convince me that in the short term at any rate a classic shard would probably do pretty well. But in the long term, a shard frozen in time where the devs would have to approach the possibility of any new content, or any changes at all, with extreme caution for fear of pissing off the priests of "classicness"? That remains to be seen.

...fanboi

A pointless, meaningless insult that discredits those who use it...

 

[Llewen]

To avoid emptying the current shards even further, besides not allowing transfers to the new shard I think it is necessary to allow there separate housing.

I've been of the opinion for some time that allowing others to have a house on Siege in addition to a house on the regular shards might improve the population issues on Siege, the same would apply to a classic shard. Although I think they would have to keep the housing rules as they are until they have a good grip on exactly how many people are going to be playing a classic shard and would want housing there.

 

[Lorax_Pacific]

<snip>
I don't care if there are stat/skill locks...
<snip>

GM camping...FTW.

-Lorax