1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Idea for low population shards

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Xalan Dementia, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    If the day came that the shard list was to be shortened then perhaps this idea would help. divide the shards into 3 catagories, High pop, med pop, low pop, im sure it wouldnt be that cut and dry but somethin like this. now on the low population servers make a new xfer token that would be account bound and only appear to characters at least 6 months old on the low population shards. now make this xfer token able to transfer the player to medium population shards only. now i kno a lot of people wouldnt do this because they dont want to leave thier house. so dont force them to xfer at first. also to help the housing issues, maybe you could open up some of the reserved housing area on the med pop shards. This is of course a very crude and rough idea but it might balance out the medium and high population shards. There would have to be alot of thought put into making this system nearly impossible to abuse.
     
  2. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    What is the thinking that prompts peeps to post ideas about shard consolidation? Is there an issue you have with low population shards? Do you reside there? Do you not like it? Do you reside on a high population shard? Do you not like it?

    I do understand you play the shard you like for it's various reasons. And there are methods to change shards if you are not happy with your current place of residence.

    So please explain.

    LORD Yalp of Zento, CTDM
     
  3. Wraith One

    Wraith One Guest

    I have to agree with Yalp. What do you have against low population shards? If you don't play on them, then you should not be bothered by them. Some people in this world like to play alone, and the lower population shards offer a more suitable environment for them. Also since you think inconveniencing the paying customers of low population shards, then why not make some of the paying customers on higher population shards to move to lower ones to balance out the populations. In any case, this idea should be scrapped. Your talking about making paying customers move from their home shard, and quite possibly forcing them to quit. That would not help in any way. There are people who own homes in Luna on those shards. You can't just replace such a spot on a higher population shard. People also own items that cannot be xfered without being destroyed. i.e. real house deeds. I'm sorry to say this idea just won't work any way you look at it.
     
  4. Salty Pete

    Salty Pete Guest

    I choose to play on the shard without so many people for a reason. That reason is none of your concern.
     
  5. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3
    I like my low pop shard, Im waiting for everyone else to leave so I can have the shard to myself ;)
     
  6. Kral

    Kral Guest

    So...**** of the user base for absolutly no reason so they will drop their subscription....why?

    If your not happy with YOUR game experiance (Tio many peeps, to few) buy a char XFER token and move to a higher / lower population shard...why force everyone else to do the same as you? :coco:
     
  7. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    wow the kids sure got uppity quick on this one. Think about it, EA sees falling subscriptions and eventually the cost of keeping up the current number of shards is not cost effective, so they could either close the game or consolidate. I never said it needs to be done now, just an idea for when the day comes. you see the constant whining is killing uo and the bashing of the devs makes it even worse. The devs are trying to save uo and you people just keep up the bashing. grow up kids.
     
  8. Fink

    Fink Guest

    Don't be surpised by opposition, this shard merge idea is never well received.

    Trouble is, subscriptions aren't an amorphous blob you can cut and meld as you wish. People play where they play often for a variety of reasons that fall far outside of this recurring "all out eggs in the one basket" concept.

    List all the shards by population, address each one in terms of consolidation value (to be absorbed, to be added to, etc), create a fair and equitable plan for merging player housing, address the ping issue for remote players, etc.. then the idea may be taken more seriously. At least you'd have some worthwhile dialogue, instead of "this idea stinks.. again".

    As for my opinion on the perennial topic of shard merges, this idea stinks.. again.
     
  9. Beldon

    Beldon Guest

    Let EA/Mythic worry about their own game.
     
  10. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3
    I keep seeing this argument but how would cutting shards save money? The game is over 10 years old so any hardware will be well paid off, as less players play the bandwidth requirements drops as well. They are in most people’s opinion understaffed for the amount of players they have now. So saving on electricity perhaps?
     
  11. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    thank you for replying without an attitude Fink. im not a veteran of forums and not yet used to people getting so grouchy. I know no one wants to think of uo dying but, down the road consolidation may be an aid, that is of course if the cheaters dont kill uo first. I can say to the negatives on this idea, if you dont have somethin real to say about the idea, then dont reply.
     
  12. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    Waste money on staff to run dead shards. perhaps if there were a few less shards, the gms would be more helpful on the remaining shards
     
  13. THP

    THP Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    9,940
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    So u are saying a newish player of say 6-7 months who decided to play on a low population shard because he wanted a instant KEEP for the placing cost alone or maybe near enough free Castle (4-5m on the low shards)...can get a free transfer to say the biggest shard atlantic and get to place his old keep or castle on reserved specially area.......thats worth like 200-750 millo on the new HIGH POPULATION shard....

    yah yah thats gonna work...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :next::next::next:
     
  14. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    agreed that the cost of the hardware should have been paid off long ago. Staffing needs seem to be on the low side as is. If they have issues with cost vs. benefit analysis, then most companies go to raising fees as a first step. Consolidation would be so rife with issues, it would cost EA far more than they could possibly save.

    Unless of course, the fee increase needed to offset any added cost were so high and egregious that every player quit. Then a consolidation might be a valid option. Don't worry about it till then.. long long down the road. Me thinks EA/Mythic might kill off the game long before that bridge is crossed.

    Yalpers!
     
  15. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    Don't let that idea stick around too long.. GM's don't show up on our low pop shards either!

    Yalpers!
     
  16. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3
    It’s actually hard to say if migrating players onto busier shards would decrease the demand of GMs or actually increase the demand instead. As more player interaction would occur, more than likely more disputes between players would occur as well causing more demand for GM services. Think of it as police officers in real life – heavily populated urban areas require far more police officers to keep the peace than rural areas do.
     
  17. GarthGrey

    GarthGrey Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend GoT

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Tek you only come out of hiding for events, which are overly crowded anyway. So why would low pop shards even matter to you?
     
  18. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    The lag alone it would cause should concern everyone. Unless of course you were speed hacking. In that case.. a very strong argument in favor of speed hacking could be made.

    Yalpers!
     
  19. Nylan

    Nylan Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    My question is for everyone that brings up one of these post is...
    Are you on a high population shard?
    And seeing how you think it is a good idea what do you have to lose when it is your shard that is closing?

    I like where my homes are, I do not want to be told you can move it to here or there.

    What if the low population shard housing was to over wright the higher one?
    Would you still think it is a good idea?
     
  20. Xalan Dementia

    Xalan Dementia Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    81
    never said they get to keep thier house thp. perhaps you need to understand what you read before replying.
    Consolidation would prolong the death of the game, when it comes.
    Less shards = more staff per shard.
     
  21. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3

    Lol wtf? I only come out of hiding for events? That’s rather presumptuous of you to say about me, you probably just don’t know my characters. I play almost everyday, the fact you don’t see me is because I’m usually hunting with a small group of friends/guildmates, or soloing or whatever else Ive got going. I like the nice quiet shard life were I don’t have to run into people all of the time.
     
  22. Lucy of Kenton

    Lucy of Kenton Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    21
    ea/mythic are doing their best to ensure all shards are badly populated.
     
  23. Kral

    Kral Guest

    Two of the reasons for reducing the numbers of shards given by the posters relate to cost savings.

    In both cases, these are not valid cost savings measures.

    UO is a multi tier application consisting of a client, am application, and a database.

    The application does not need to reside on a system dedicated to running the application. In fact, UO can be “virtualized” to have every UO shard in the world run on a single physical piece of hardware.

    There is no need for the application or database layer to be dedicated to any specific hardware. The layers should be treated as abstracted applications that are independent of the physical hardware layer.

    Server virtualization is a huge cost savings for companies that adopt the technology. The beauty of virtualization is that the end users do not need to know that you have gone from 100 physical servers to a single big server.

    Done properly, the users will actually think the applications run better and faster.

    Bottom line for EA is that running the current UO shards on a few hardware platforms that virtualized the physical servers would save the company money, and the UO players would never know the difference.


    Now for the argument about the GM’s having less work.

    The GM workload is not based on the number of shards, but on the numbers, and types of players.

    It makes no difference if you have 100 players on 100 shards, or 100 players on 1 shard, the GM workload is the same.
    Personality of the players however, that makes a big difference to the GM’s
    Some play styles require much greater GM interaction with the player base.
    For those who recall some of Sunswords old post on the topic during the UO:R change and the changes to thieves will recall he was very explicit that Free for all PvP, corps looting and Thieves drastically increased the number of calls to the GM’s when non-consent players were mixed into the equation.

    So, would EA save money from reduced GM workload if they reduced shards? No, in fact, as the other poster mentioned, the greater interaction of the players would probably increase the clash of player personalities and thus increase the GM workload.



    On the other hand, forcing the existing player base to move (Change) would be a costly and time consuming process that would once again alienate the player base, break up existing communities, destroy shard history and result in lost subscriptions.

    People resist change. Any change forced on the player base will alienate some part of the player base. Think thieves, UO:R, AoS etc.
     
  24. Nylan

    Nylan Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    1
    You need to understand that I asked a question that you decided not to answer.

    Are you on a shard that would stay open or one that would have to close?

    And if you are on one that would have to close would you stay?

    For me I worked for what I have on my shard and if it was Incorporated into another that would be the end...

    I did understand what you proposed, but I also know that consolidating low population shards does not mean that the revenue lost to account closing would be able to sustain the current level of labor.

    What do you think cost more, the hardware that is already in place or the overhead of the labor to keep it running with a diminishing player base.

    I would think at this point that keeping or increasing our player base would be the way to go.

    And I can not see how reducing the numbers of shards is going to help that.
     
  25. drinkbeerallday

    drinkbeerallday Visitor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    how many times do i have to say this? there are no high or medium population shards. every shard is a low population shard. the game is dying. that is why people are bringing this up in the first place.
     
  26. drinkbeerallday

    drinkbeerallday Visitor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    0
  27. Flora Green

    Flora Green Guest

    Good way to get people to take you seriously. :next:
     
  28. drinkbeerallday

    drinkbeerallday Visitor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    0
    perennial? i think i brought it up a few days ago.

    dictionary.com.
     
  29. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3