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

Merging Shards (W/ A Twist..)

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Lord Essex, Mar 24, 2011.

  1. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know there has been many ideas on what we'd like from the Dev's in a new shard.. a classic shard, a pvp shard, etc etc.. People have also talked about the possibility of merging shards what it would mean to peoples items, houses, etc.. Ok so I've decided to make a poll and as well float an idea that I'm not sure has been floated before for merging shards better known as "consolidating" <~~ horrible speller.. sue me.. ^^

    Idea A: Merging lower populated shards together..
    Simply put this would be providing one way transfers from one shard to another that as well has a smaller population.. The old shard at some distant future wouldbe shut down.. but players would be provided with pently of time to move. To address the moving issues.. Players could have a selection to "box" up their house (basicly your homes moving yellow moving crate) this box would transfer with which ever character you wanted and be placed your new home site once you found yourself a new home. No items could be added to the box, only removed to prevent people from trying to use it as a storage system to get by the limited storage of smaller homes. As well allow players to pack their own moving crate to minimize the hassel of locating something

    Idea B: Create a new shard and have multiple shards transfer to start fresh..
    Same setup for moving your stuff over, but this would allow people to start from scratch with placing a house, no one would have an unfair advantange. Run the placing similar to whats been done in the past with wait for a little while after the lands are released before allowing anyone to place

    Idea C: (Probably impossible) However merge two shards together. Two of each land would exist.. one shard could be deamed the primary lands.. while the other is a shadow land. New housing can only be placed in the primary lands, and as time goes by the shadow lands start to whither and die.. Towns are destroyed.. Trees and resources start to dry up and disappear, until all thats left is just empty wasteland with the few remaining homes, until a set date in the distance future when the world will simply vanish as the two worlds become one.. (Sorry its late and I'm tired.. sure this post has some ramblings in it lol and when I check it tomorrow I'll have plenty to edit.. :D)

    Idea D: Other.. What other ideas do people have.. I'm not looking for a way to bring new people to UO, or how to bring trammies to fel or any of that.. but simply a way to deal with the current state of UO and how to improve it for us as players.. & maybe.. just maybe the Dev's side to.. less shards = less work right?

    **Please also let it be noted that if any idea were to be implemented it take some time to give current players who may not be playing a chance to come back and not be cought off guard when they log back in for a free trial and find EVERYTHING gone.. I'm sure there could be some things done to help minimize that.. Maybe all characters on a retired shard are transfered to a holding shard (just a place for them to be) until the person comes back and can move them. & W/ reguards to certain number of historical homes/places/items could be moved reguardless to save some part of history n memories..

    **The above is soley the ramblings of a old timer that has long been forgotten.



    Respectfully,
    Lord Essex
     
  2. Its too bad we cant just have a "shard gate" that would allow us to travel between shards for selling stuff, pve or pvp. Maybe make to where you get to pick one shard to go back and forth from.
    I like my shard, slow or not, but it would be nice sometimes to participate in larger group activities, I just dont wanna move permanantly.
     
  3. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    And thats the thing.. I love LS & it'll always be home.. But the most enjoyment I ever had in UO was with large groups of people.. Its probably a mute point with the profits EA makes ofg of x-fer tokens.. But I'd do just about anything to have a more populated shard w/ the people I know.
     
  4. Nexus

    Nexus Site Support
    Administrator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    1,835

    Both of these face the same issue, players would mass revolt if they had to give up their houses and move to another shard. With Idea A, just because a shard has a low playerbase doesn't mean housing is readily available.. I've seen shards where Keeps and Castles bear the name "Storage House".
    Idea B: has issues as well, so what if they can pack up their houses in a box. Someone moving out of a castle, who gets unlucky and can only manage a 8x8 isn't going to be able to unpack.

    It still won't get people willing to move, you'd wind up losing an entire shards worth of players over this is not more.


    Other ideas? Sure he's a great on, focus on making UO into a game with actually marketability, if this means setting a deadline to phase out the CC, in order to focus on a marketable client, which doesn't mean the EC can't have a "Legacy art" option that makes the play window look like the CC, for us long time players. Or if it means completely overhauling the server side of things to provide greater flexibility, so be it. What UO needs is new blood, you, the other posters here on Stratics, myself, we are not the future of UO. We are the present and the past, Mythic isn't going to be able to re-populate UO with middle aged family people, which most of the Vets are now. There was a poll done inside one of the groups I play with, the average age was in the mid-high 30's, these people were introduced to UO while in their late teens early 20's and that is the target Mythic needs to re-invent UO to appeal to.

    What we need to do is learn to adapt and use our experience to help them along that path instead of fighting them every step of the way, it's counter productive to everything most of us say we want, and that's more people to play with.
     
  5. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I agree with some parts of that.. I do feel there was a reason UO appealed to us in the past n I think those reasons would still work on those 20's something today.. (maybe its because I am one).. But if were gonna go that far as a reboot almost then its time to stop beating a dead horse n create a UO2 for real
     
  6. Nexus

    Nexus Site Support
    Administrator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    That appeal is still there, that's true, but it needs polished up a bit. Some folks see a rusty old car and realize that in it's prime it was a thing of beauty, others see it as Junk. What I'm saying is UO needs is some one to bring out the shine in the paint again, to knock the dints and dings out, make UO something that the youngin's will look at and say "That doesn't look bad". It's first impressions, and if we can't get them into the game to learn that underneath all those flaws is a real beast of a game, then nothing we do will really matter.
     
  7. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now this I totally agree with
     
  8. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    Obviously not, because you're not willing to pay for transfer tokens :lol: j/k

    Nexus said what I was going to mostly say, but I think that merging shards would be brutal, no matter how you dress it up. I've been through server mergers in other games, and it was a completely different situation since the game relied on players being together and since there weren't ties like player housing to keep people attached to their shard. I've wondered if other games have refused to do housing because of those kinds of attachments.

    When people build up attachments through things like player housing, it's not just some trailer you can hitch to a truck and haul to another plot of land. Those who would have to move would feel very betrayed and feel that the fees that they've paid over the years are somehow worth less than those who wouldn't have to move. Forcing them to move is very divisive and your severing ties that maybe the only things keeping them around.

    And let's face it, usually server mergers are a sure sign to players, the media, and non-players alike that the game is in serious trouble. It would be sending a really bad message to potential players, current players, and would-be returning players.

    The future of UO is bringing new players in. There is no other way to put it. I think EA or BioWare finally understood that, hence the new player experience and possibility for new artwork (that was sent off to PR almost three weeks ago rolleyes:). I think they also have to get the EC into shape because younger/newer players expect a highly modifiable UI that they can tweak to suit their needs.
     
  9. jaashua

    jaashua Guest

    The great silent majority of players will just not leave their shards. It's a really bizarre attachment given that all shards are identical other than the people and houses. Yet even if the people and houses moved, people still wouldn't transfer. Trust me, I suggested organizing a mass transfer including accomodations made by the host shard, but I got 100% opposition.

    You have to understand the mind of the typical MMO player. They find repetition and familiar things comforting.
     
  10. To be honest, if they came out with some kind of teleporter or "shard gate" type thing and offered it thru uocodes, I would buy it.... im one of those ppl I dont want to leave my shard.... just want a chance to get off it sometimes without xfering all over the place.
     
  11. AzSel

    AzSel Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    4
    Id like to see a shard gate for sure. Atleast between certain shards. Like Drach and Europa.
     
  12. Frarc

    Frarc Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,770
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    No no no and No, stop trying destroy our communities.

    I do not want to destroy our Player run towns we worked hard to put together.

    I'm not looking for 100 people on a event like on Atlantic where i can't move.

    I do not want our huge alliance on Drachenfels to fall apart.

    And i do not want our unique things to dissapear.

    And so on...


    If you do not like your shard, then you move. :p
     
  13. Winker

    Winker Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    620
    I have 2 accounts one with a house on each shard, drach and europa. I have both accounts fully built up on both shards. So there is no way i want a merger as it would lose 14 of my characters.

    But i would be open to a gate system. But idont see the need as i have said I have devloped 14 chars on each shard so no need for gates or mergers.

    I dont see why other people cant do the same. If you feel your shard is under populated...Move!
     
  14. Sevin0oo0

    Sevin0oo0 Guest

    I like the shard gate!
    we could be moved to Oceania, I bet it's getting low on players
     
  15. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    It bewilders me that more people didn't notice this being brought up in the video House of Commons.

    The answer was, in effect, a no.

    Unlike other games that have merged servers, UO doesn't necessarily depend upon large numbers for its effect. Some people, the team stated, like large groups, in which case you may transfer a character to or start a character on another shard. But some people really like having a small community.

    It was pretty clear that this option had come up among the team and had been rejected.

    -Galen's player
     
  16. silent

    silent Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    186
    The Blair Witch Project had better camera work than the UO HoC. So I'm not surprised it was missed. Anyways I'd be for linking the regional shards through some kind of gate. Maybe only usable once every 24 hours or something like that.
     
  17. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did actually watch the videos and great they said no.. If people just stopped doing / brainstorming everytime somebody said no wth would we be.. Pretty much no where.. I posted this forum to try to get people think and come up with new/different ideas and to gauge public opinon on it.. (somehow the polls never went up.. *shrugs* I'm not perfect..)
     
  18. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    True enough, I suppose. Their reasoning, however, appeared to me to be quite sound.

    I suspect very strongly that the advocates of small shards with small, insular communities would be heard from a lot more after the smaller shards were shut down. Rather like how the fans of the Third Dawn client were suddenly heard from a lot more when it was on the chopping block.

    -Galen's player
     
  19. Why would you need to close shards. This is the same stupid waste of time argument that goes on here.

    Point one. NO one is yelling I AM STUCK ON A SHARD AND CANT GET OFF. Earn 20 million and leave. Or just start a new player on your shard of choice.

    Point two. Refer to point one. IF YOU DONT LIKE THE SHARD you are on, then leave.

    Point three. Refer to point two. You don't merge shards because of low population you let those that don't like low population leave. There is a mechanic for it.... use it.

    BLAH.
     
  20. Kael

    Kael Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    108
    Smaller homes would not be an issue for most players if they allowed for increased storage based off current house size and the plot you place. Make it also only good as a one time event...meaning sell or trade your house and away goes the extra storage bonus
     
  21. olduofan

    olduofan Guest

    I'm all for merging shards I feel that it would in fact make for stronger community. having more players on a shard would mean more people willing to go hunting together and we would be able to meet more people to build stronger community. anyone that knows me in game knows I spend a great deal of time on my homes and I am more than willing to drop all of them and be forced into a new shard. new and return players come into game now and most shards are a ghost town how boring is that, try doing champ spawns and bosses by your self right thats just lame and boring. I could go on and on about the pros and cons here but as usual I feel it falls on def ears here and with the dev crew (that I dont feel half even play or know how 2 play)

    I say merge at least half the shards and I'm also willing to be the one to move.
     
  22. Kael

    Kael Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    108
    Has Drach or Europa gotten slower over the last couple of years?? People tend not to move shards when they get bored of slow population... they tupically just quit the game. Regardless, shard mergers would just allow people to interact with different characters, make new alliances, invade champ spawn scene ect ect
     
  23. Anira Cuilwen

    Anira Cuilwen Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think it's because people don't want to loose the individual shards history.

    I would not want that too.
     
  24. Dellaney

    Dellaney Guest

    UO dont need to merge shards,UO need new players.
     
  25. olduofan

    olduofan Guest


    New players come new players sees no one is playing and the shards are empty new player quiets and moves onto Wow to feel like they are actually playing a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) (not a singular player game).

    :cursing:
     
  26. Nexus

    Nexus Site Support
    Administrator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    1,835

    OR

    New Players comes sees 10-15 shards only 3 of which he/she can actually get a decent connection to. Each of the 3 he/she gets a respectable ping time to is a shard with large lively player base, enjoy it for about a week until they realize that all dungeons are camped 24/7, and they are unable to place a house due to all available land being taken up. Realization sets in they will never be able to achieve the "UO Dream" under the current system. <-- Hey didn't that last few lines sound like T2A?

    Goes played LOTRO with instanced housing, and expandable bank storage and tiered equipment that prevents clutter and junk.


    Neither Closing some shards, nor, merging shards is a real answer the problem. The only right solution is to make the improvements needed to the game to make it truly marketable again. Make it something new player will actually be interested in trying. Not one shard has so low a player base that someone won't jump all over a new player offering to help them out. Go look at the "An Invitation" thread concerning Siege, yes Siege where PvP is everywhere. Yes Siege with a population that makes a slow day on Legends look like hot night on Atlantic...

    UO needs new blood not less options.
     
  27. Dellaney

    Dellaney Guest

    If they do a little promotion for the best game of the world,there will be every time a couple of youngplayers in the new "young player zone" like 1998.
     
  28. phantus

    phantus Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    8,369
    Likes Received:
    10
    The only thing that will ever bring in new players to UO will be a new Ultima title. Nothing else is going to draw in new players to a game that is obviously dated and is the least supported game in all of BIOMYTHICEA's portfolio.


    As for shard merging; game killer.
     
  29. olduofan

    olduofan Guest

    I do agree with a lot of your points. I would just like to say,or ask do you really see the devs ever advertising again do you really believe anytime in the near or far future that we are all of sudden going to have a huge influx or new players especially with out advertising?

    Hell i play pac trying to get anyone to go kill the blackrock goloms was impossable and then the devs turned around and made them harder it already took me 2 hours to kill WTF. Ya a more ful shard would be much better maybe we could rebuild community and prolong uo existence.
     
  30. Nexus

    Nexus Site Support
    Administrator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    Do I see them doing it? No, but then again I don't sit in office meetings with them and I haven't yet managed to bug all their cubicles...

    Looking at the track record with MMO's they have though...

    DAoC - Same shape as UO basically
    Warhammer Online - This isn't the success you're looking for.
    Star Wars: The Old Repiblic - Not launched yet so it's either going to do well or be another Warhammer. The game play vids I've seen have me iffy, it's combines a lot of stand alone rpg elements into a MMO, I'm not 100% sure how this will work out.

    I'm hoping that if SW:TOR either succedes or falls on it's face it give EA a reason to look on it's other titles, find out what is wrong with them and gives them a reason to invest in bringing them up to current market standards. If this is finally a UO 2 so be it, it isn't like it would compete with UO. If not then it will give them insight on what they can do to bring the titles they already have back to relevance. UO's expanded over the years, but it's never really "improved", game play is basically the same as it has been for a decade, just with more variety thrown in though added skills. UO is falling into the same rut that other titles have, lack of innovation. Eventually it will happen to the folks over at Blizzard, and those 11million WoW fanboys will be pouring out in droves, UO being so old it's attrition has gone farther, and due to Internet technology it didn't have as much meat on it's bones to start with.

    UO needs to be less Frank Sinatra who never really changed style his entire career, and be more David Bowie, someone who continually re-invented himself while keeping much of his classic charm.
     
  31. Zosimus

    Zosimus Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,370
    Likes Received:
    720
    LAWL!!!! Love this post. Thanks for the laugh :) I agree with you 100%
     
  32. BINGO
     
  33. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    As somebody who was really excited with LOTRO when it was announced, who played it a lot, and who still goes back once in a while, housing is horrible. People complain about UO devs, but they've got nothing on the LOTRO devs. Every so often the LOTRO devs will mention doing something with housing and a lot of people get excited, only to be let down when nothing is done. Housing in LOTRO is pretty much useless.

    Which is really odd for an F2P game, because they could charge quite a bit for improved housing and players would be all over it and they would rake in money. They know what the players want when it comes to housing as well, so it's not a great mystery.
    I still can't believe that for $300 million, the space combat in Star Wars is literally going to be on a rail, as in you can't deviate and off and fly around. It's being called a "tunnel shooter".
     
  34. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    Others have brought this up and I like to bring it up - there is a certain anniversary next year, and plenty of game sites will be doing retrospectives on UO. Lot of free PR.

    There are also things like the video being put on Curse.com first. I doubt Curse.com did that out of the goodness of their hearts, it was probably attached to something else EA promised them.
     
  35. olduofan

    olduofan Guest

    I most have missed all of that last year did it happen the 1 day I didn't log in?

    Why is this year going to be any different than last didn't we have a anniversary?

    sorry but have a page on Curse.com isn't going to bring in 10 new players, we need shelf space. Remember when the 9th ann came out and se both in stores and sold out, we need that again.
     
  36. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    Next year is the 15th anniversary. Gaming sites will do plenty of retrospective stories about it like they did last fall when they won the Game Developers Choice hall of fame thing, especially with the MMO industry seeing some major changes. Star Wars will have been out for a while (maybe :lol:) and people will have had a chance to determine if it will succeed, Blizzard will be playing up Titan, and there are a slew of other MMO that will be out of beta or coming out of beta. There is quite a bit happening. Retrospective stories tie into that very neatly, and given that it will be the 15th anniversary of the first mainstream MMO, it's perfect.

    Plus retrospectives are easy to write and generate plenty of comments. Every time these sites mention UO just a little bit, such as with PAX recently, even if UO is not the focus, it's usually good for plenty of comments of players reminiscing.
    I actually think it was pointless to have the story on Curse.com right now since there was nothing new shown - you're not going to get the attention of Curse.com readers with UO's current graphics. There was a lot going on with that video and EA's PR really botched things.

    My point is there is "free" advertising available to UO, by piggybacking on other EA/BioWare titles. Game companies use the piggybacking thing all the time, although it's probably called something else. They can tell game sites that if they want an exclusive or a good story for this really popular game, they have to also provide coverage of this other less popular game. They can also do things like give it a prominent place on their main site - right now, the Mass Effect games, Dragon Age, Star Wars, and Warhammer rule the main BioWare page, but they could easily make room for UO IF they did some major upgrading of the game.

    Speaking of upgrades, if they do actually get an art upgrade into UO, that will help a lot with the retrospectives that will be written, and it will generate buzz, especially among past players.
     
  37. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    The thing that worries me is that Blizzard is already looking beyond WoW, even as EA spends $300 million on chasing WoW.

    Blizzard has already transitioned quite a few of their best WoW people over to Titan. EA looks at the last financial quarter (or the next) while Blizzard is looking several years down the road. I'm still surprised that EA isn't pushing harder to get Star Wars out the door. One of the Blizzard big wigs came out and said that they see Diablo III as being the biggest threat to WoW in the short term, and I agree with that. They also said that if that's the case, they are quite happy since somebody leaving WoW for Diablo III is still a Blizzard customer. On top of that, they've got Titan and between Titan and Diablo III, they are going to be able to keep plenty of WoW customers around as well as bring in new players.

    That's the attitude that EA needs, but EA is run by people who don't seem to get it. If they can put $300 milllion into Star Wars, they could have tossed a few million extra to UO and Camelot and shore up those playerbases. Instead they gutted Mythic in 2009.

    If Star Wars fails, it will be BioWare/Mythic that is gutted, and the Dragon Age and Mass Effect games will probably slide under the mainstream games, while EA continues to ignore UO/Camelot (while slashing their budget probably). I think EA would just focus on the MMO from 38 Studios that will be based on the Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning game that EA is publishing, assuming it does well. Speaking of which, that is what phantus was kind of talking about - this stand-alone Kingdoms of Amalur title is laying the groundwork and creating a fanbase for an MMO that is several years off. EA should be using a stand-alone Ultima game to rebuild the fanbase for UO, or they should be doing something with Ultima to generate some interest. The Lord of Ultima crap was just a slap in the face and pointless.

    There seems to be an attitude within EA of treating a lot of games like they are either stand-alone games or that they are franchises that see one stand-alone sequel churned out after another along with associated pixel crack they sell. That's great for sports games and Sims games, but it does not work on MMOs. Any competently-run game company would have done what was needed to at least maintain UO and Camelot's playerbases. Smaller companies are doing MMOs that have plenty of players, more than UO/Camelot, and there is no reason why EA should ignore UO and Camelot so much other than out of sheer incompetence and undercutting by other groups within EA, similar to what Richard Garriott experienced with EA Sports.

    In a perfect world, Star Wars succeeds enough to let BioWare do their own thing and build up the other properties within BioWare's stables, including pumping cash into UO and Camelot. It's not a perfect world.
     
  38. Kael

    Kael Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    108
    Bingo!!
     
  39. Lord Essex

    Lord Essex Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the end I've seen a whole lot of what players believe UO needs.. but little in the way of ideas on how to make something like merging shards work.. Please don't get me wrong I love all the shards & the history behind them.. & I also do agree that closing some shards may be a sign of long term health of UO.. but if EA were to actually make some progress in providing us with a refreshed.. reborn even UO 2.. improved graphics.. polished mechanics.. etc.. Then would this be such a bad thing.. Maybe its just me but I would take a last great age though shorter then a long slow painful death which I believe is what we're currently experiancing..
     
  40. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    528
    ...

    Shard mergers for UO would be a nightmare and would hasten the ending of the game.

    Instead we (and the Devs) should always be focused on ideas, concepts, and prospects to INCREASE the number of people on the existing shards and GROW the game, not shrink it.

    Want to play on a busier shard, transfer there.
     
  41. Nexus

    Nexus Site Support
    Administrator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Patron

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,570
    Likes Received:
    1,835
    I agree, and alot of people have voiced opinions on what they think will improve things but they are often downed out by the awful EC vs CC or Tram vs Fel threads.

    I started a poll today on if the EC had a toggle to use all CC graphics similar to "Legacy Containers" etc, would that get people to try it.. The idea of that wasn't to start a EC vs CC thread but to see if that would be a solution that would allow the Devs to get rid of one client and focus on improving a single one not maintaining 2. Something that in the end would open avenues for a more modern player experience without removing the CC's look for those that are firmly loyal to it.

    I see tons of posts on improving Graphics so UO can be marketable in an age where games like WoW and Rifts visually leave it very far behind. I see posts talking about how the EC's stock UI needs improved, and it does, the learning curve is way to high on it, it's why UI Mods like Pinco's UI are so popular with EC adopters, it takes tons of guess work out of the system.

    I see posts about flaws in game mechanics, though they rarely viable suggestions from the players on fixes, but sometimes they do.

    The Truth is there have been positive suggestions, just no results.
     
  42. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    There are only 2 arguments that I have ever seen for merging or closing shards.

    One is money: The game is alleged to be non-profitable now, or less-profitable than it could be, because of 'too many' shards. This argument is, I would argue, indirectly debunked by the dev teams' statements on the issue at the HoC. If the game weren't profitable and it were too many smaller shards causing said non-profitability? EA would have gotten rid of shards already. They wouldn't have hesitated a moment. This is the company who laid off people from a profitable game (UO) because of the failures of non-profitable ones.

    After that it should be fairly clear that they wouldn't have hesitated to dump shards.

    Two is gameplay: Some think gameplay is better with large populations.

    The second argument, however, isn't objective, and wouldn't apply to all players. Not everyone agrees large populations are better, and if you happen to be one of those who does agree, moving, either through character transfer or making a new character, is reasonably easy.

    -Galen's player
     
  43. Striga

    Striga Guest

    Shard gate is the way.
     
  44. Anira Cuilwen

    Anira Cuilwen Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    3
    Guess the problem with that is it would cut the income for xfer tokens.
    They sure would need to compensate this in some way.
     
  45. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    This idea gets posted all the time and although the developers have stated unequivocally NO! on many occasions, some people never get the hint.

    1) Lets start with the premise that a low population shard is a negative.

    A. Many people enjoy low population shards.
    B. Lag on low population shards isn't the issue it is on high population shards.
    C. Housing on low population shards isn't the nightmare it is on high population shards.
    D. The economies of low population shards are not obscene levels.
    E. Each individual the ability to decide for themselves if they wish to play on low or high population shards, no one is forced to live with high lag, high costs, no housing options and increased griefing that usually accompanies high population shards.

    2) Lets now go to the premise that EA has some need to consolidate shards.

    A. There is no evidence EA has the business need to consolidate shards.

    3) Now let's discuss the negatives associated with consolidating shards.

    A. Housing. Duplicating prime real estate for the homes lost to those forced to move.
    B. Loss of shard history.
    C. Loss of Shard communities. i.e. role playing/guilds/alliances
    D. Increased Lag.
    E. Increased Griefing at EM/player events and other shard wide activities.
    F. Increased Exploits/Cheats/Hacks to compensate for the increased lag/griefing.
    G. Increased inflation of game economy.

    So... in general, I reject the premise that low shard population is a negative in need of correction.
     
  46. Lynk

    Lynk Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    6,032
    Likes Received:
    145
    Coming from someone who doesn't care about shard history, decoration, where my house is or what it looks like:

    UO needs to merge american shards to 1 east and 1 west coast server. UO is supposed to be an MMO, but some shards have so few people you'd think they were all playing over a private LAN.

    I don't really care how they do it.

    I don't care how they handle foreign servers.
     
  47. Woodsman

    Woodsman Guest

    In an MMO, it's implied that there are other players.

    And many of those players most definitely care about their shard history, decoration, and where their houses are.

    You just think a lot of shards are empty - try telling 15 or 20 shards' worth of players that they are going to lose their history and homes and that they have to move to one of two servers.

    In theory, that would create a housing problem that would make pre-Tram Lake Superior, Atlantic, or Great Lakes look lightly populated.

    In reality, there wouldn't be a housing problem since a lot of people would probably just walk away from the game.

    This isn't 2003 or even 2008. I doubt UO could stand to lose another 10,000+ subscriptions.

    I actually wish that people who complained about shard populations could be given a free one-time transfer to the shard of their choice, with the understanding that moving back to their old shards would be very expensive.