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

UO to cut its shards in half and keep the most populated shards running ....

Discussion in 'UHall' started by kennykilleduo, Jul 8, 2008.

?

Would you still play based on listed conditions?

Poll closed Jan 24, 2009.
  1. Yes

    50 vote(s)
    50.5%
  2. No

    49 vote(s)
    49.5%
  1. If UO was to cut its shards in half and keep the most populated shards running would you still play the game under the following conditions:

    1. Full house , items transfer , wont lose anything.
    2. No cost to you
    3. Housing will be in new areas( new expansion?) or areas you cant currently place ( T2A, Ill ) or in specialized areas (player run towns).

    Any other thoughts?
     
  2. Tazar

    Tazar Guest

    I am not voting because your options do not cover my situation... Keeping player housing in tact is great... but I want to keep my houses in their "player run town". Unless the player run towns can be relocated intact, I'd have to say no...
     
  3. It would be interesting to see what a dev thinks of this idea , or if it could be done.
     
  4. TheScoundrelRico

    TheScoundrelRico Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend Secret Society

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    35,539
    Likes Received:
    908
    It would depend on what they did with Siege. If the ruleset was changed, I would cancel all of my accounts...immediately...la
     
  5. packrat

    packrat Guest

    There is no way this can be done without losing tons of players, which UO cant afford to do at the moment. Lets say they close 3 shards. You have Luna houses, houses in special locations, sentimental houses. Not to mention the transfer of million and millions of items and other things. Can you imagine losing a luna house with all of your possesion in the middle of transfer of these items?
    Then who gets to choose which shards get closed?
     
  6. EnigmaMaitreya

    EnigmaMaitreya Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting How are you going to do a House Transfer when in fact we all place our houses in the exact same spot on each shard?

    Were ya gonna put my house man? In the Ocean?
     
  7. Righteous

    Righteous Guest

    What if instead of you had to move your house, that a super shard showed up instead that had multiple luna's and other house locations labeled Pac Luna, Baja Luna etc with everything alread moved for you? The non housing location wouldnt be moved or duplicated. :mf_prop:

    Righteous
     
  8. EnigmaMaitreya

    EnigmaMaitreya Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    But then what would be the point? The belief we would all of a sudden start to play together as some super community?

    Isnt that just "Hey lets let all players from all shards play together and freely move Gold and Items to were ever" by another name?
     
  9. wrekognize

    wrekognize Guest

    This topic is so old. Leave things the way they are and watch the numbers increase on servers once the expansion is released. (I know I know…doom and gloom it all you wish on your replies. But it will happen).

    ...
     
  10. Wallenstein

    Wallenstein Guest

    I would still play, yes, but thousands of others likely wouldn't. Imagine the publicity this game would get if EA cut half of its servers? Would people think that UO is a good game if that happened? Likely not.. It would give UO an unbelievable amount of negative press, which is the last thing any game needs.

    My assumption is that with the Magincia destruction there will be a "New Magincia" (following past Ultima storylines) on only the servers that suffered the loss of Magincia last year. This will be the beginning of differentiating the servers from one another (i.e. some shards have New Magincia, some have Old Magincia from 2007, etc.). More events will take place over time and each shard will become its own.

    Likely? Who knows.
     
  11. Tina Small

    Tina Small Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran 4H

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    1,914
    You didn't address a couple of things that would concern me:

    Would we get an unlimited number of character slots on the new super-shard? On some of my accounts, I have multiple characters on multiple shards. Lots more than seven characters total. If I had to kill off some of them because they exceeded the number of slots I'm allowed, would EA reimburse me for all the time I spent training skills, power scrolls and stat scrolls I used, points accrued in community collections, etc.?

    What if I don't want to play on a crowded shard? What if I'm happy playing on a shard that's not teeming with folks 23 hours out of every day? What if I truly don't like the idea of wasting my time standing in line to get a turn to hunt in the places I enjoy? Or what if I don't enjoy running into jerks and jack-asses every place I go?

    If EA ever gets to the point that they feel they have to do this, I'm pretty sure I'll take it as a signal they're close to shutting down the game for good and I doubt I'll stick around.

    If people want so badly to play in crowded conditions, then why don't you start putting more pressure on EA to market the game and improve the buddy referral and welcome back to brittania programs? Why does the solution always have to be to jam the few people that are left into the smallest possible space? Seems like it would cost EA a whole lot less to spend money on those "positive" types of efforts and get more revenue in the long run than spending dollars on programming a shard consolidation effort that will most likely end up killing the game completely.
     
  12. Siege is its own monster and should stay this way , though i'm sure you'll would love some more players...


    3. Housing will be in new areas( new expansion?) or areas you cant currently place ( T2A, Ill ) or in specialized areas (player run towns).





    :(

    ......

    they created character x fers , why not house x fers , or shard x fers , won't have to move much of anything..
     
  13. Kith Kanan

    Kith Kanan Guest

    Ehhh I got 4 houses next to each other , 3 of em tower and 18x18 size , no way I'll give that up , if I could keep those I would not mind except the only shard we would merge with would prob be drach because of the placement of the servers , I'll will not go back to playing with a 200 ping , thats why I left Napa in the first place..............
     
  14. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

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

    Things are fine, if you want to go to a more populated shard then either transfer (when it is available), or create a character on the desired shard.

    Unless the shards become more costly to maintain than the game makes on monthly income, there is no reason why they should close down a shard.

    Forcing people to move to shut down a shard right now will only be another nail in UO's coffin, both due to people leaving due to losing their current house places and due to the perception of shards being closed.
     
  15. Spellbound

    Spellbound Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    89
    Are you certain I wouldn't lose grandfathered homes? How do you compensate for castles, Tokuno/Luna/insert favorite location homes? What are the chances for present day guildmates living side by side in the new lands? Who likes to tear down 18 x 18's, with the risk of losing rare items (like the old tent and house deeds), and tediously rebuild their dreamhouse? No thank you!
     
  16. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    Would I still play? Yes.
    Would I be happy? No.
    I want to stay on a shard that is a medium population.
    I like know that there is always at least one spawn I can hunt at either by myself or with a small group that I enjoy going to without being bothered by others, but also multiple spawns that I can go to and find other players.

    We have big shards. We have small shards. We have shards in-between.
    Pick a size that best fits you, and find the crowds on that shard that you most enjoy playing around.
     
  17. Loqucious

    Loqucious Guest

    I voted yes, but it would be unnecessary if there was a "moongate" which allowed char transfer with only the items the char was wearing.
     
  18. Cadderly

    Cadderly Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    14

    Which shard is the more populated shard? I've transfered from Chess to Pac to Atl to GL. None of these stood out to me as being populated. Where to next?

    They created more shards to fit the population as it grew. Now there are to many shards and not enough players to fill them. Don't you vets miss the good ole player interaction? If by some miracle advertisment begins and population starts to grow again they can open the closed shards back up again.
     
  19. hon

    hon Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    15
    This is far off idea. How about for one month open gates to other shards were u cant buy or sell, your bank will be close to u in any other shard apart from yours. giving people a choice of transfering to other shards were they could place bigger houses. there are some who would like to transfer to small shards with less people so they dont have to waste time to go hunting. On placeing a new house all your stuff from your house would go to your new house and all your character will be also be transfer. they could set it up that this happens once a year and before u know all shards would have a few extra people playing it. Yes it would be hard for the many that have more then 2 acc. but it could help keep this game going for many years. and for the shards that are about to bit the dust it gives them a chance to get out. its just a idea that others could add to and make ea think about what they are going to do down the road.
     
  20. FarukAlazar

    FarukAlazar Guest

    If all those conditions are met, sure why not. Plus, I'm on Pac, so we would be merged into, not merge into someone else.
     
  21. galefan2004

    galefan2004 Guest

    If they worked something out with housing, I would like to see them combine shards, so that the shards themselves would be more active player wise. The life of your shard dictates a lot of stuff in this game.
     
  22. galefan2004

    galefan2004 Guest

    I want to see speciallized areas...I like how the housing is done in DAoC.
     
  23. galefan2004

    galefan2004 Guest

    I'd assume they would be closing the least populated servers completely, so...
     
  24. galefan2004

    galefan2004 Guest

    How about they do what they did for DAOC and just cluster the servers? I would welcome server clusters. They could put T2A, Ilshenar, and the dungeons on the cluster and just keep the outlieing areas to be seperate from the cluster.
     
  25. Joyous2K

    Joyous2K Guest

    Still play but start griefing "nanny nanny boo boo" to the losers
     
  26. Sunrise

    Sunrise Guest

    I do have a thought. Anyone remember Ever crack? It may not be going as strong as it was 8 years ago...but its still out there. Heck a friend still tried to get me into it LoL. I was like wtf?

    You can say all you want about UO going down for the count. But if a game like EQ can still get players to play...Im not to worried about UO going away anytime soon. Just my two cents. Thanks.
     
  27. Gwendar-SP

    Gwendar-SP Guest

    I left Great Lakes and moved to Siege because of overcrowding on Great Lakes. Lag was killing me. On great lakes I had a cabin and a large tower - both cost me big bucks. On Siege I have two castles, a keep, and several other houses. Lag is so bad on regular shards that I don't even go back for the gifts.
     
  28. Kaleb

    Kaleb Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a stupid Idea!! Not worthy on my poll selection. It is something that will not, could not, would not work too many shards too many houses. I got a great Idea why dont you buy an xfer or start a new character on a more populated shard. :gee:
     
  29. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3
    What benefit would EA have with shutting down shards? Save on hardware? I’m sure the hardware has been paid off over the past 10 years. Maintenance and staff? I’m sure the limited staff they have now are easily covered by the current monthly fees. Until its not profitable for EA to run all the servers they wont be shutting any down.
     
  30. timbeOFbaja

    timbeOFbaja Guest

    Actually there's an easy solution. Two shards get closed down and one opens up in their place. You can transfer any number of characters from either of the two shards that were closed to the new shard in their place up to the six character limit. Housing will open up randomly over a two hour period on three seperate days with the most desirable locations last to open. Heck, restrict luna placement to people with previous homes there. You lose maybe a few dozen accounts and end up retaining a lot more because people like the new crowdedness on the server.
     
  31. timbeOFbaja

    timbeOFbaja Guest

    People like the shards being more full. More activity. Feels more alive. Outside of Atlantic, most of the shards feel like ghost towns outside of the handful of hotspots.
     
  32. MalagAste

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

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2000
    Messages:
    18,957
    Likes Received:
    5,449
    First of all........ I doubt this would ever occur..... especially the moving of a house totally.....

    Secondly.... Unless the entire GLRPC moved and we were all "guaranteed" that we could keep or have our own player run towns..... Or be put where we are on our current shard..... I'd have to say NO....... We have player run towns.... some of our playerbase uses existing towns... but the guild I am in has it's own town.....

    Finally..... I have 8 homes on 8 accounts..... I have spent ages getting several of those homes close together...... on a highly populated shard...... the heck I wanna go and scatter them all about again..... I like most of them exactly where they are. The only thing that would get me to even concider moving would be if the shard was designed specifically for RP.... without npcs..... and with Seers, Councilors or EM's or a combination of all three.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]



    Please click the egg/hatchling and help my dragons grow.
     
  33. Fink

    Fink Guest

    1. No way of doing this, period. It would be like merging Tram/Fel, too much overlap in housing to do it. Ever had that facet-bug where you see two houses intersecting? Yeah.

    2. I like where my houses are, anywhere else would be a "cost" to me. My castle's located in a quiet, spawn free area which suits me, my customers and visitors. My 18x18 events house is in a prime Umbra location for convenience. I can't see having to merge somehow improving on these locations. Having to move all the decoration and vendors from my museum and shop would be impossible, and I wouldn't entrust EA with transferring a bag of fertile dirt, let alone all the stuff I have worked toward and built up.

    3. Moving housing to a new area would just be a disaster, especially T2A which has next no level ground on which to place houses. Another ridiculous land rush like the opening of Malas. Scripters would get the top locations, end of story. Player-run towns already exist and have done for years, with histories and facilities built up over time. Forcing everyone to move would wipe all that away.

    4. Where would you suggest Oceania merge? Asian shards are the nearest, but are almost entirely Japanese/Korean-speaking. Everywhere else, including Asia, is too laggy.

    Until you put names to this idea, ie: which shards merge with whom and who gets housing priority, then have the people involved - especially those disadvantaged by the merge - agreeing to it, it'll only ever be a half-baked concept.
     
  34. Norrar

    Norrar Lore Master
    Governor Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    294
     
  35. timbeOFbaja

    timbeOFbaja Guest

    LOL. Disadvantaged. Like kids born in the Congo? It's a video game. For all I care they could wipe all the shards and just start six new ones. There's your merger. I'm going to adapt and move on. If you'd be emotionally crushed by this then you have problems WELL beyond where your virtual house is placed.

    As a long time vet of UO I remember when they wiped all our bank accounts. People don't even remember that because everybody moved on and because they did it for the greater good.
     
  36. DebiHIS

    DebiHIS Guest

    On a shard that housing placement is almost impossible, you have to buy a decent sized house....you want to bring over everyone's 18x18?
    I have houses in Tokuno, I dont want to live out in the lost lands somewhere, lol
     
  37. So you like ghost towns and having to pay for xfers?

    Umm no , again why should I or any other players who like more populated shards have to pay to transfer , are you part of the don't wanna lose anything to make UO better club?

    This is my point , my idea maybe extreme , but would fix this problem..
     
  38. AesSedai

    AesSedai Guest

    "but would fix this problem"

    What's the problem?

    People are still active on every shard the last I checked.
    The game is still making a solid profit the last I heard.
    If you look there are still many signs of progress.

    So, your poll is in play and I voted,
    but may I ask:

    What happens when you cut the shards in half and UO significantly gains more subscribers?
     
  39. Zofinur

    Zofinur Guest

    No!

    IMHO the only reason to close a shard would be there is noactive player.
    They could ask and maybe reward the players to move.
    But nobody should be forced to move!

    (FYI: I am playing on a Shard that hopefully is not meant to be closed: Europa; so my vote should not be considered to be egoistic.)
     
  40. Masuo Kenji

    Masuo Kenji Guest

    I don't think EA Mythic would consider a server merge. There would be too many different items, houses, and shard history that would get destroyed in the process.

    If you're on a prodo shard, and you want to go somewhere more populated, either create a character on a more populated server, or use the character transfer on your already existing characters. That way, it's more voluntary.
     
  41. hawkeye_pike

    hawkeye_pike Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    11
    While doubling the shards' populations sounds like a good idea, this "sloution" has one big flaw:

    Player run towns and communities! (Someone already mentioned.)

    When the world was once split into Trammel and Felucca, about 80% of the communities were destroyed (even though people were NOT forced to move) and a lot of players left because of the downfall of player communities.

    Now, merging shards would literally FORCE the players to re-build their houses, and to re-build them in in second-class areas (because the good places are already taken). And adding more land or spoiling landmasses like the Lost Lands with house-cluttering isn't a good idea. I NEVER would place my house in a place like Malas, because it has no history, no attractions, and is merely a housing landmass.
     
  42. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    This topic came up last week and I asked the question as to why this is necessary at all? There was no answer other than there is no good reason.

    Overcrowding is an issue.. low population is not. Low population equals greater community. Overcrowding equals more competition for gold, arties, event items. With cheaters getting better advantage in that scenario.

    And as a side note.. with code as old as in UO do you honestly think there would be NO issues what so ever? are you willing to take a chance that ALL of your possessions would safely arrive in a new shard? If you are on a shard that is being deleted.. .OF COURSE you will loose your house space.. OF COURSE you will loose your items.... OF COURSE your guild will be destroyed.... OF COURSE your alliance with be destroyed... (and more than a year since it's worked right)... OF COURSE you will loose the pets in your stable.... OF COURSE your grandfathered housing will be lost... OF COURSE your prized rares will be lost.

    LORD Yalp of Zento, CTDM
     
  43. Tek

    Tek Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not all players do like busier shards - players did leave crowded/busier shards when Lake Austin and Origin shards were opened.

    Also players do have the ability to move themselves to other shards already with character transfers.

    So if players want to play a busy shard or a quiet shard the choice is theirs, which to me seems better than forcing a player to move to a specific shard and may result in more players leaving the game.
     
  44. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    indeed... SOME people like busier shards.. SOME people like less crowded... live and let live.

    LORD Yalp of Zento, CTDM