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

Server merge; open mind?

Discussion in 'UHall' started by LeBaiton, Nov 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    We like playing this game, but we also hate a plethora of things about playing it. Fact is that the ammount of players with active accounts is a lot lower than it once was. UO is 14 years and two months old, but also has an aging userbase who seem to be unable to agree on anything (based on my experiences in U.Hall for the last 12 years)...

    A lot of us wish we could play with more people online per shard. It's reasonable to assume that there won't be any new advertising campaigns, thus it's reasonable to assume we won't all of a sudden have a surge with new people playing. Even if a new players somehow finds out about UO and starts playing, he or she gets 20 servers to pick from. Will they pick your shard? Roll of the dice really, they'll most likely pick whatever is at the top of the server page at that particular moment in time...

    How can we increase activity per shard? One of the options is to merge servers. However, we are all touchy about our virtual properties which we treasure and to which we've grown attached. Whenever the subject pops up some people talk about how they'd quit if we were to merge and they wouldn't be able to take along our stuff, houses, memorabilia. Others could care less and would start fresh without a heartbeat. The subject divides people. I believe players find it hard to listen to the other party. I'd also firmly believe we'd all be able to agree to a merger if it were to happen under each and every one of our personal preferences, or rather; demands. That however is unlikely to happen...

    So why post this thread?

    I'd like to see if it's possible to genuinly talk and discuss about it for a change and leave any negativity out of it. Also because I'm genuinly interrested in why people see it the way they do. I wonder what others expect from a merge, what would be a 'must' for them and would they consider other points of view if they ignore that first knee-jerk defensive view on the subject?

    I'm not limiting this to a particular way of posting, but I would like to ask to give everyone a chance to explain why they see things the way they do, and respect them for it. I'd be interrested to see if U.Hall can "man up" to such a challenge...

    My 'musts' on the subject are as followed:

    - If I were to move for a merge it would be a must for me that all the items and pets that I currently own can move with me. I do not want to be limited to a certain ammount of lockdowns that I can take along. However, I *would* be willing to perhaps change my point of view on this if I'd receive a good explanation as to why a limit would have to be in place.

    - It's a must for me that I'd be guaranteed help from UO support staff if items or pets that were merged/transferred to another server change in any way, in function or perhaps lose their name, or if items get lost due to bugs of any kind. I am currently not really willing to change my position on this.

    - It's a must for me that the items I take along won't place any restrictions on bank activity, character backpacks or force me to use pets to carry stuff for me. I am currently not really willing to change my position on this must. I feel that if a merger needs to happen it would be the devs responsibility to code a perfectly functioning way to ensure this happens.

    - It's a must for me that the hardware of the server where I'd be placed would give me a good connection. I am currently not really willing to change my position on this must. I do however understand that the world's a pretty big place and UO players come from all over. I do not know how you'd be able to guarantee everyone a good connection if you're shortening your server list.

    There ends my list. As you can see, I don't really much care for a possible initial lack of housing, however this is without a doubt a very important point for other players.

    One last point, I'd like to think of myself as someone with an open mind. With regard to the above points, I *would* actually consider having to start on a fresh server with nothing. The only motivation for me to consider that though would be if everyone would be in the same boat, plus the fact that the economy would receive a very welcome restart, but that's it...

    Thanks for reading, I'd be interrested to talk about your 'musts', or perhaps you can change my mind on any of my 'musts'...

    TL;DR: please start back at the top and try to. Thanks :)
     
  2. Aurelius

    Aurelius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    689
    Well... no. The reason I am against shard mergers is that my shard has a 'history' - places, EM/seer created or player townships, that I don't want to see go. I was part of some of it, aware of a lot more of it, and think it matters for the overall tone of the shard.

    Were it absolutely vital for the survival of the game, I'd maybe reconsider - but it isn't, so I stand firmly against the idea.

    Quite how I say 'no' without 'negativity' escapes me though.... ;)
     
  3. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you've written it down in a positive way, Aurelius. With "leaving the negativity" out of it, I ment leaving out the flaming, the bickering, the attacking of people because of the way they see things... :)

    I hadn't considered shard history. Would you consider a merge if the end-product is a new fresh shard without a history but with double the EM team and more events?
     
  4. Aurelius

    Aurelius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    689
    Only if it's vital to keep the game going. I might be tempted to play a completely new 'clean' shard, but to be honest I can play so may that are effectively 'unknown' worlds to me in terms of locally specific features (and in some cases the 'atmosphere' of the shard) I have more than enough to choose from already.
     
  5. McValdemar

    McValdemar Guest

    Ok, I understand that, but, you prefer to have such historical places in a DEAD world, or prefer to loose much of em in favour of a world inhabited, crowded that can bring more stories?

    I think that the merge could be made in respect of the shard's history creating something like a museum, a garden, or something similar to show peculiar items and main stories happened in the shards merged.

    I guess server merge can be the best thing that could happen to UO to bring life again into this world.
     
  6. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    No, it's fairly well-established that some people like the small communities where most people know most people.

    Those who want to play with more people can transfer to Atlantic or Great Lakes.

    Games that do server consolidations are those that require a lot of people online at once for the experience.

    Although I agree with this reasoning, I should point out that this wasn't my reasoning: It was a close paraphrase from producer Cal and Mesanna, when the issue was raised in one of those "state of the game" videos.

    The fact that they discussed it so cogently likely means that it's come up behind the scenes, the analysis performed, and the decision made: Shard consolidation would do more harm than good.

    UO players need to learn that "I want this" does not automatically equal "everyone wants this," and to adjust our language accordingly.

    Does "negativity" mean "don't disagree with me?" Given that you started your post with a premise so blatantly incorrect, as shown above, that's really what I'm inclined to think.

    -Galen's player
     
  7. Njjj

    Njjj Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    37
    I also would prefer not to merge shards, and would vote against it unless it was vital to save game. I would rather see them offer one time character transfers for free to players who would like to transfer. Maybe they can enhance these to include all of someones stuff/pets. But I think there are some people that prefer the lower population shards, either because of the history that they experienced as stated above or maybe they prefer the playstyle. I play mostly on chessy, and although I realize it's not one of the lowest population shards, I think it's closer to the ideal population now than when the game was at peak. I've seen more of a small town attitude among the players that I think is nice, but just like in rl, it's not for everyone.
     
  8. Aurelius

    Aurelius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    689
    Dead world? Not the shard I play on..... quieter than in the distant past, yes, certainly - but dead? Hell no. And we can always bring new stories to it if we want to make the effort.
     
  9. pgib

    pgib Guest

    Makes no difference for me, as long as i can transfer the whole account.
     
  10. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    Point taken, Galen. That one slipped the read and reread before pressing the post button, I will adjust that sentence in my original post.

    I explained what I ment with negativity in my reply to Aurelius, plus this post has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. I'd like it to be an open discussion about merges. I've personally used it just now to get rid of some of the angst and expectations I would have if a merge would ever come to pass.

    It could very well be that I failed to put my point across, I've tried to think what I wanted to say through in english, but it's not my first language...
     
  11. Haruchai

    Haruchai Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    12
    Whilst we are a relatively small and neglected section of the player base, the role-playing community is one of the most long-lived and loyal.

    When Aurelius writes about shard history, I imagine he is also refers to this tradition and the player built towns that have grown up. Many of these groups both supported the development of history and story, and kept it going when there was no official commitment to events.

    At the time of the Felucca/Trammel split, many communities were completely wrecked as guilds and towns tried to move to Trammel, or stay and keep members in the new Feluccan wilderness. The trauma that led to many, many people leaving from the RP community then would be replicated by shard mergers.

    For example, unless you could guarantee that my village, built over a long period of time, could move to the exact same spot - in the exact same relationship to the other local towns and groups that we interact with, we would find it rather tough to start again. It took years after the Renaissance split to build the bonds back - not interested in doing it again in the twilight populations of current UO.

    One recognises that this play style is a very minor one on most shards nowadays, and the idea of guilds that restrict their members to GM armour and pre-Ren skill sets so that PvP, for example, can be fair and challenging, makes most posters here laugh. But in relation to the OP's question, it's one reason why shard mergers would probably lose more players than they would gain.
     
  12. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks for the response, Ultimaholic...

    In an effort to actually converse/discuss/talk with you, what in your opinion would have to happen to turn that no into a yes?
     
  13. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    To me it would appear to be less a linguistic issue than a matter of the premises being incorrect.

    Even if you mis-stated your premises, others who make the same argument do indeed have the identical premise. "Everyone" wants this. UO shards need a big population. They ignore that not everyone wants it and that UO doesn't depend on having a large population the way, say, WHO does.

    With shard transfers, any player can experience a large population anytime he or she wants, and, likewise, a player who wants a less-populated environment (say if I envision the world as being mostly populated by NPCs and the adventuring life being a particularly lonely one) can go to one.

    The big arguments for this are:

    1-UO needs the big population.
    Which it doesn't, and if you as a player do, it's within your power to fix by moving.

    2-Paying for shards hurts the game's profitability.
    Which we have no evidence of.

    Bottom line is there's simply no good reason TO do it. In fact right now we have 2 shards which have a distinct rules set, which are between them the lowest population shards (according to a long-ago deleted Draconi posts), and there are to my knowledge no significant calls to delete or even merge those two shards. In fact periodically you get calls for yet another shard with a distinct, customized rules set.

    And this doesn't even touch on some of the more obvious reasons to NOT do it (housing for example and the preference some have for a small community as has already been mentioned multiple times now).

    Usually this comes down to the poster's preference and any one player's preference cannot be the basis for policy, especially when there is already a method for effectuating such a preference.

    -Galen's player
     
  14. McValdemar

    McValdemar Guest

    Today's UO landmass is so vaste that even merging, people looking for quiet places could find as much as they need.
    But people that look for a living world could find one.

    The only big big issues is houses.
    As long as the houses now staying in game are all for payed accounts.

    I don't think that merge is issue-free.
    You loose story, you risk to damage communities, but let's face it...
    ...many game aspects are simply lost due to this scarce population.

    Few people decor homes, few people tend vendors, the worls is now only inhabited by old players that exchange items for millions, while offering a crowded world that could lure a solid base of new players might bring more that it will take away.

    There's no right or wrong in the idea of merging. Is quite very personal.

    But I'm absolutely in favour of the idea.
     
  15. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    My remark about language; the premise "We all want" was written down as a prelude to the part of my post where I'm trying to make a point about having an open discussion. The focal point in your reply was based on that premise in my prelude. Ofcourse every individual player has preferences. You have one, I have one, others have theirs. Yes, this post is about my preferenced point of view that a server merge would happen. Nowhere in my post am I trying to hide or deny that.

    I also said I would love to have an open discussion without the negativity (as explained in my reply to Aurelius) about my point of view, so I'm glad you've opted to bring those two points to the table. It gives me something to think about while reviewing my point of view, just as I'm hoping others bring points to the table to make you and others think about their point of view.

    I've stepped into this thread with an open mind and I value the pro's and con's which are being brought forward.

    I know you've probably ment "a shard needs the big population", because UO could definately use some numbers :)
     
  16. Poo

    Poo The Grandest of the PooBah’s
    Professional Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend Campaign Benefactor 4H

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,844
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    i play on a small shard because i like to be able to 'do' the new stuff when it comes out.
    i dont wanna have to wait in line to play something that i pay for.

    if i wanted to, id play on ATL.

    shard merge requests in my opinion, are made by people who need to have people forced to play with them because they cant attract friends any other way.

    why would i want to to be forced to play on one big shard?

    why would i want to be forced to downsize my house?

    why would i want to be forced to play with 30 other people at a spawn?
     
  17. Striga

    Striga Guest

    Absolutely agree about merge or with one SHARD GATE that connect TWO shards for example Europa with Drachenfels and viceversa.
    No need two Ilshenar for sure.
    This is one possible way; no houses lost, no hystorical life shard lost, no items lost and transfer tokens always active if u wanna go to other shards.
    I don't see issues but only a big improvement for all community.
     
  18. Krinkle

    Krinkle Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    75
    If you look at most games that have merged servers, you see a lot of giving up. I'd like to think that the DEV team is working on ways to fill the shards back up, not throw their hands in the air like other MMOs. Some people like to say that UO is too old and the technology out of date. To that I say that there are many games not using the latest technology and are doing fine. The success of UO is squarely in the hands of those in charge and not on the players, as some have suggested in the past. I have never felt that merging shards is the answer.

    To fill the servers back up maybe the DEVs should stop working on the eye candy and work on the things that would bring people into the game. UO used to be a social experiment. Bring that back and empower people by giving them tools in game. Expand guild tools, change general chat to better serve the community, give incentive to people to spend time in the help channel for new players ...etc. Vets love helping new players so use this resource. There are many things that could be done but little is ever done that doesn't involve giving out free items.
     
  19. THP

    THP Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    9,940
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    Its no good saying it cant happen

    It has got to happen ..there are shards out there with only 50-100 active players......pretty sure these can be merged..castles and all into some new add on town landmass...[end]
     
  20. Petra Fyde

    Petra Fyde Peerless Chatterbox
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    30,889
    Likes Received:
    5,175

    On what do you base these figures?

    I'm afraid I would see a merging of shards as the beginning of the end. Next step would be the closure of the game. I'm not in favour.
     
  21. MalagAste

    MalagAste Belaern d'Zhaunil
    Reporter Professional Governor Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter Royal Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2000
    Messages:
    18,967
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    No I could not consider it...

    GL's is my home... always has been... and always will be. I can't see moving... first off I own a vast majority of a player run town... why would I move?!?!?!?

    My RP is based on much of where I live and where I am. I can't just pick up and move...

    Sure I'd love to have more RPers around...

    There is only ONE thing that would get me to move to a new shard.

    If they made new shards that were content specific.

    Shards designed around specified gameplay.

    Shards for PvP, Shards for PvM and RP based shards...

    Where the EM's for those shards did events based on the playstyles of the players on them...

    That MIGHT get me to move. Add in a new true 3d client.... and that might get me to even consider starting over.


    Otherwise to just move and merge so there were more folk on one shard..... NO
     
  22. Alvinho

    Alvinho Great Lakes Forever!
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    14,075
    Likes Received:
    2
    exactly let me pack up all my characters on the deleted shard, including a moving crate for my household items/resources and give me a similar home i would be fine, opposed to the game shutting down completely due to 50 barely populated shards, then my answer would be sure why not
     
  23. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    Haruchai, a fair point to make. I was shortly involved in the RP community at the very start of my UO carreer in '99, but once Trammel was introduced, bonds and relationships quickly dissolved, and that particular guild I was in fell appart. I was never again involved in RP. So, from an RP'ers point of view, a 'must' would be a guarantee of town transferral. I personally could care less about a house, for me a house is just four walls and a roof to hold my belongings. Thanks Haruchai, I had never really considered that...

    Thanks Poo, as you and Galen pointed out I had never considered that the fact that some shards that are low in numbers are more popular for people with that particular playstyle. To add to your post from my point of view, I like to PvM a lot, but afterwards what I like even more is try and sell my loot to other parties for a nice profit. A lack of population in my view leads to a lack of sales. That's why I like having a crowd around...

    Thanks for all the insights so far...
     
  24. GalenKnighthawke

    GalenKnighthawke Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,641
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    If you like having a crowd around you can transfer to GL or Atlantic. As I'd thought it comes down to your disliking low populations. (And in this context I am quite plainly and incontrovertibly referring to "as part of the game experience," not in terms of subscription numbers. The two may be related but they aren't the same thing because if UO had, say, 300,000 subscribers, and half of them played on, say, Atlantic? Then we'd have high population in the game but some shards would still have low population.)

    Also you plainly state that you don't care about housing....But I submit that way more players do care about housing that don't; and further those that do care about it care about it a lot. We've already seen the quite justified reaction when housing is being shoved aside in favor of PvP! I suspect an even worse reaction, and an even more justified one, were housing to be shoved aside to accommodate your playstyle.

    -Galen's player
     
  25. old gypsy

    old gypsy Grand Poobah
    Professional Stratics Veteran Campaign Patron PITMUCK

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,840
    Likes Received:
    5,281
    I'm afraid Petra is probably correct. Just look at player reaction to the recent thread about moving houses next to arenas, which only affected a few people. The resistence to merging shards would be a thousand times greater, and I fear it might result in players leaving in such large numbers that EA would shut the game down. :(

     
  26. LeBaiton

    LeBaiton New Player Protector
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes Galen, I dislike low population. The fact that I said that makes it pretty obvious. And as I stated in my OP, I'm trying to find out why others don't. That's why I am thanking those that explain. Is there something else which isn't yet clear and I can perhaps explain better to you?

    In my OP I said
    So as you can see this is something I expected to be brought up. I'm not ignoring the subject at all.

    Let me reitterate, this is not about my playstyle, I'm just trying to learn why others see things the way they see it. Thank you.
     
  27. olduofan

    olduofan Guest


    same here
     
  28. The Craftsman

    The Craftsman Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    678
    Id be up for some selective shard mergers. One European shard for instance. Drach into Europa due to Europa being the more highly populated and Drach being unbelievably thin on the ground player wise. I usued to play Drach exclusively but transfered 11 characters across to Europa ... I have one left on Drach and its like a wilderness.

    Would I accept the merge the other way? Europa into Drach? Yes I would. If it meant me giving up my housing and throwing up a new shack on drach then so what ... small sacrifice for a richer game experience. This is an MMO.
     
  29. Elicia

    Elicia Guest

    So you want to play on a shard with more people?

    I want to play on a shard with less people.

    You feel it is appropriate to force me to play to your preference and play-style?


    I like my low population shard, just enough people to interact with, not enough to crowd things.

    If you really feel the need to be crowded together, you and everyone else who feels the same can buy transfer tokens, and stop trying to force your play-style on everyone else.
     
  30. Zomeguy

    Zomeguy Guest

    I think you have it backwards. You want to keep everyone playing in a barren wasteland. There is no longer any shard where you are *crowded together*. Such a thing does not exist, even the most populated shards are pretty empty.
     
  31. old gypsy

    old gypsy Grand Poobah
    Professional Stratics Veteran Campaign Patron PITMUCK

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,840
    Likes Received:
    5,281
    I have a suggestion. If this is actually being considered, why not just email every UO subscriber and ask each one what their view is on shard mergers and whether or not they would continue subscribing if that were to occur? Wouldn't that be far more efficient than speculating about it here?
     
  32. Wizal the Fox

    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    23
    It's no secret I'm all for some shard mergers, but the only thing you will find in this thread are the very vocal naysayers as usual, if only because the majority of people are not playing on "dead" shards obviously, or have their own agenda (xshard traders, etc...) and I don't even see why they would have a saying in the matter.

    I think 2 things should be done first though:

    1) Resume the house decay. Currently on the "dead" shards most of the houses are attached to inactive accounts. I even have some myself since years (and I can't even access them since I'm not friended on my main account). Only after that will everyone see the true housing situation.

    2) Let the people who want to permamove to a "normal" shard do so NOW, and that is WITHOUT ASKING THEM TO PAY $140 TO XFER THEIR 7 CHARS PER ACCOUNT.

    After that, let's see how many people and houses there are on those dead shards. Chances are you would be able to merge at least half the shards with barely anyone noticing.
     
  33. old gypsy

    old gypsy Grand Poobah
    Professional Stratics Veteran Campaign Patron PITMUCK

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,840
    Likes Received:
    5,281
    I'm not opposed to shard mergers on principle... I'm only concerned about the possibility we may lose too many subscribers and UO might be shut down as a result.

    Yes, on turning house decay back on. However, is this the right time? I believe some posters have said they have not yet completed the account migration process. How might that affect them?

    If future shard mergers have (unknown to us) already been agreed upon and the planning for same is in the works, this should be made known immediately and an option should be offered ASAP for players to transfer entire accounts without additional cost. Before this happens, though, all subscribers should be emailed and given the opportunity to give their honest opinions on such a monumental change to the world of UO.
     
  34. SugarSmacks

    SugarSmacks Guest

    I think that merging shards currently is pointless as there are currently shards like Atlantic where it wouldnt be possible to merge period. The fact is there are still shards that dont need to be merged to have an abundant population.

    The only point that even made sense out of all these posts so far was how is a new player supposed to know if theyre preference is based off population. Honestly im sure there is a simple solution, but it really does need to be implemented.

    IDOCS do need to be turned back on, most players are now using account mitigation to let their accounts go inactive because they know their valuables are safe. If you dont force decay in a reasonable time you are hurting the game overall, and catering to the scum looking for a free ride....yet again.
     
  35. hen

    hen Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,709
    Likes Received:
    420
    Since Drachs and Europa keep being mentioned.

    I love both European shards but I love Europa as I can keep it away from me by being on Drachenfels. The last thing I want in UO is a bunch of Englishers in bear hats running around spamming (DON'T KILL ME I AM RPING).

    If Drachenfels is to die, let us die with dignity. You guys keep the bear hats.
     
  36. Mirt

    Mirt Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    286
    If it has to be done I would at least consider making a move. That being said I am not sure how long I would stay after that if the history happened. If it were to be done my suggestion would be to allow recognized townships to move first to a brand new shard and then allowing everyone else to move in. Of course while I think this is the fairest way I would imagine that it would cause even more players to leave so that would be a negative and perhaps even cost more players then it would save. Of course like I said I would be willing to do it if it was necessary for the game.
     
  37. Barok

    Barok Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    330
    The only way a server merge would be successful is if they duplicated *all* the housing facets on the destination shard so nobody would lose their house, and increase the character slots so people wouldn't lose any characters either.

    Trying to pick out the correct facet on the moongate gump would be hell after that, and logging in and scrolling through 48 characters to find the right one wouldn't be any more fun.

    So no, ain't gonna happen no matter how many threads you start on the subject.
     
  38. Lord Frodo

    Lord Frodo Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Likes Received:
    2,318
    :bdh:

    This again :wall:

    #1 This will never happen because the Devs said so.
    #2 You can not give me the same location for my houses on a new shard that I have on my shard. This will cause people to shut down accounts.

    So go ahead a merge away and when they shut down UO because of dropping subs than you come here a cry about it.

    If you want to move then go here UO Game Code Store - Product Details Ultima Online™ Character Transfer Code and get as many of these as you want. Enjoy your new shard.

    And just think of all those 14th yr shields that will be worthless.
     
  39. Tina Small

    Tina Small Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran 4H

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,532
    Likes Received:
    1,917
    Instead of shard mergers, I'd rather see EA do something to try to get former players to return to UO--all those folks that know what the graphics look like, know what the client(s) look like, and know what a great game UO can be. Perhaps offer a slightly reduced subscription fee for three months for accounts that have been closed for x length of time (e.g., $30 for three months if your account has been closed for seven years or longer). And if you keep that long-closed account active for six months, then maybe you are rewarded by getting one additional vet reward choice and then one additional vet reward choice after you leave the account active for twelve months.

    I'd also like to see EA make every house have the same amount of storage so people who want to play on crowded shards can do so without having to spend a small fortune if they want a decent amount of storage and so that on the shards with smaller populations everyone isn't huddled into the facets where you can place keeps and castles.
     
  40. Lady Storm

    Lady Storm Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    1,557
    Shards are like old friends .. no two are alike.

    This issue is an old one and as you can see a hottly debaited one.

    On one hand you have low populations on many and in that picture you would think mnay would go over for it.... but on the other side of that coin is the Rich History, landmarks that are not on other shards. Yes each shard is slightly different.

    Also in a merger ultimatly there is going to be homes that reside in the same locations that hold special meaning for players. What side do you slight on this?

    I know you meant well and it was very nice of many to keep this civil.

    I see no solution to this outside of saying due to all things considered this is a moot subject and should be laid to rest for all times with a resounding never gunna happen tag in big bold red letters.
     
  41. olduofan

    olduofan Guest

    it would be nice if once a year we could transfer char free of charge maybe those that want to be on a fuller shard would transfer and those that want to be on an empty shard can stay and then see where everyone ends up. I would like to see 3 main us shards 2 main Asian and 2 Europe shards. I would not want to see old landmarks destroyed and lost tho so I have no clue how you would do this with out the lose of such places. I would also be willing to give up my homes and be one of the ones having to move.
     
  42. Wizal the Fox

    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ridiculous. I actually watched the video when Cal said they were thinking hard but had not found an acceptable solution yet because of the housing issue. It was less than a year ago.

    If there are 50 people on a shard and 10% close an account because of that, that's what, 5 accounts? Sad, but see if anyone cares...

    Oh yes, the world would end I'm sure...

    Can you send me your credit card number please? Because I don't see why I would need to pay anything for that. I'm not the one so scared to loose my house location in case of a merger.

    I would gladly trash the 2 shields I've claimed.
     
  43. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,468
    Likes Received:
    592
    There have been several positive ideas on how to handle server merges before (That usually get drowned out).

    1. Semi-merge: Make all shards at a server location share their T2A and Ilshenar location. Actual crossing from one shard to another wouldn't be possible, but items could cross using the shared locations as trading grounds.

    2. Expanded Merger: Have the housing capable facets redrawn at double their current scale, which would result in 4 times the room (or possibly quadruple, which would increase land area by a factor of 16), then 2-4 shards would be moved in. All event items, player-run cities with official recognition and the like would be moved over to these expanded locations by the devs (possibly with the option of relocation of old towns to Trammel if the current residents wish). Then, everyone else would have the ability to pack up their house as a deed, and move over (with the deeds initially placeable only within 2 degrees lat/long of their original spot, and no new housing placeable). Once everyone has had a chance to move voluntarily, then all the houses not yet moved would get relocated by the devs into the remaining spots. Character slots would be expanded and merged as needed.

    There are probably other ways that could also be implemented to keep all our old things, while still bringing the small groups together (And these would in many ways still keep the merged shards "small" compared to Atlantic)
     
  44. Uriah Heep

    Uriah Heep Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran Alumni

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,832
    Likes Received:
    2,359
    Amen. :thumbup1:
     
  45. Ultimaholic

    Ultimaholic Guest

    Nothing would make me ever want server merges. History of items and places alone is prolly the biggest reason why it will never happen.

    Some people like a smaller shard. I play LS and SP.

    For those that want more ppl and more irratations,theres always transfer tokens for a ride to Atl or GL or whatever floats your boat.
     
  46. All the difficulties have been mentioned before, if not in this thread, then others on this same topic. I'm all for a merging shards if those issues can be worked out (even if I had to give up my house), but I don't see that happening. An even bigger issue than housing would be the per-shard character limit.

    A shard transfer token that deeds your house as-is, and transfers all your characters, pets, and belongings would be a good alternative. This would just allow players to abandon their current shards, if they so wished. Of course, if half the players on Catskills (for example) decided to leave for other shards, Catskills would suddenly be very lonely for those who stayed behind. Just giving the players an easy option of leaving a shard is likely to kill certain shards. Like everything else with UO, any change is bound to upset some.

    If the the idea is to eliminate current shards and make moving to a new shard mandatory, one solution would be if these tokens took you to a new, clean shard. Ideally, these new shards would regionally replace existing ones (several east coast shards merged into one, for example). Devs could open up housing space or relax placement rules in advance of opening the new shards; more land mass is probably not needed.

    If the devs wanted to ease the move to these new shards and retain some shard history, working out a way to keep player towns intact would help. Plot deeds assigned to house owners in player towns could work. The towns couldn't all be in the same location of course, but they could be recreated in new locations; at least the current town members would be clustered together in these new locations.
     
  47. ahardy

    ahardy Guest

    I total agree with 2#
     
  48. Kael

    Kael Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    108
    I'm all for it!!
     
  49. Storm

    Storm UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Premium Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,469
    Likes Received:
    361
    not gonna happen and if it did better everyone move to my shard :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.