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

Why don't you play Siege?

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Midnight Rambler, Mar 16, 2008.

  1. I started on Siege about 8 months ago after about 9 years on Napa and haven't gone back since. It took me a long time to finally give Siege a shot and I regret that it took so long. The main thing for me was the RoT gain system, which I initially didn't understand until I got on the Siege forums and took it all in. However, once I got the hang of it and became more patient I was able to make a fully developed char after a few months. Yet it was the process that I had to go throw that really make me appreciate UO again for the first time in many years. I began playing this game way before insurance and trammel and for many of us older players the fun we had in those days is the only reason we still play today.

    Anyway, I am curious why more people don't get onto Siege and give it a shot. My guess is it is the ROT system and that if it was abolished or drastically modified we'd see a greater influx of people. I am not sure how hard it would be to change this or turn it off but a thriving Siege community I believe is good for UO. I for one had been bored of production shards for years and found myself not really doing anything when I logged on. Siege offers a level of excitement and adventure, the kind that you got from running from pks or mining as a group years ago (for me anyway).

    I know there are other reasons why people don't try and I'd love to hear them because I have a feeling that the misconceptions about Siege are also leading people to shy away from it. It's hard for me to imagine older vets not wanting to make the move to Siege. While it's not exactly how the game was 9 years ago, it's the closest thing we still have left.
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I have a character on Siege that I have been training for a while now. The main thing that holds me back is owning a house on 2 shards. I am not ready to give up my Cats house just yet and having enough storage on Siege is a problem. Living out of the bank box just isn't enough to let me get fully involved on a 2nd shard. If it wasn't for that I would play more on Siege. I like the people there.
     
  3. Magnus

    Magnus Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    287
    Likes Received:
    45
    Personally, for me it is about my connection. I have satelite internet and ping about 700ms on average and so my reaction time is a lot slower than most people by far. This makes shards such as Siege which are first and foremost a Player vs. Player shard a real difficulty for me since how can I properly respond with a 1.4 second delay between the information getting to me and me getting back to it (if I react without any delay).

    But then it is a Player vs. Player shard, and I am not big on PvP, though I will admit that I have done very little since I've went from dialup to satelite and never had a connection that could properly support such activities. Now I realize that armour is pretty generally easy to get since you don't need super-duper-uber-leet-awesome-chromeplated gear to compete and that GM made stuff is in general the best used. But, with the connection I have it really isn't an option.

    And finally theres the community, as you can see from my signature roughly what I think of Sieges community. It always has to be hardcore, strict, pvp no 'trammie' influences at all. Now I enjoy a hardcore challenging experience as much as the next person, but I do like to take it easy too! And from what I've saw (I will admit it is from limited viewing with UHall) is that the community of Siege is full of people who think their shard is superior and look down upon 'trammies'. Which kindof puts me off.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Duncan, I do see your point. At the time of my move I was fully committed so as soon as I could afford a house I placed one. While I don't think allowing another house to be a good option, having more storage space would definitely help. Though there is a lot of people on Siege who would gladly allow you to use their house for storage. In fact I have lots of storage space in my house if you're interested. It's just a couple screens up from the brit moongate so you don't need to be a mage.


    Magwart, I appreciate the response though I think you're mistaken in your assumption of Siege players. While there might be a slight feeling of superiority among some Siege players (mainly cause it's such a pain to get going on the shard and we braved it) I find no better sense of community then on Siege. Lots of players will go out of the way to help you with whatever you need and I think you can witness that even on the Forums. I think you get the feeling that all siege players are trash talkers is because a lot of the in game stuff seems to spill onto the forums since it's much more active than other regular shards. However the pvp you come across in the game is much more respectful and whatnot than on production shards I find. Generally the playing base is more mature then other shards and you will definitely notice that if you get involved.

    However, your ping issue is a good point. If the shard is too slow for you to play then that makes sense. Though I'm gathering that you ping very high everywhere and you can't really get into Pvp on any shard. While it's true there is a fair amount of unavoidable conflict, you can really avoid it once you know the shard and the "hot spots". Not everyone is into Pvp and there are plenty of places to hunt and people to hunt with without being disturbed if that's what you want.

    You actually made me think of something else that has always puzzled me. I'm a little shocked that more crafters don't play on Siege since there is a constant demand for most anything, weapons, armor, potions, tinkering supplies, ingots, wood. Even spell books sell with good regularity. Gming these skills is actually cheaper and easier after a certain level then on production shards and I figured someone who enjoys crafting and selling their wears would have a great time on siege
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    And finally theres the community, as you can see from my signature roughly what I think of Sieges community. It always has to be hardcore, strict, pvp no 'trammie' influences at all. Now I enjoy a hardcore challenging experience as much as the next person, but I do like to take it easy too! And from what I've saw (I will admit it is from limited viewing with UHall) is that the community of Siege is full of people who think their shard is superior and look down upon 'trammies'. Which kindof puts me off. [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Heh, just an FYI, Siege doesn't have the monopoly on that sort of attitude. Probably though, there are more active posters which display that attitude...other shards they are sort of diluted. [​IMG]

    As for the connection, I am surprised you can play UO anywhere with a ping that bad, and the delay bounce, and you are correct, PvP is pretty much out of the question. Satellite in general is a very poor choice for real time data applications. Dial up would probably be better for you in the long run, for UO at least.

    -Skylark
     
  6. Babble

    Babble Guest

    Because the inherent problems I have with ea are not less on siege.
    [​IMG]

    Storylines?
    Updates?
    Game support?
    And Siege bug fixes are a joke for itself
     
  7. xxEvolusxx

    xxEvolusxx Guest

    I play Siege. I'm a horrible pk'er, but I love the excitement of knowing at any minute something could happen!
     
  8. Because I can't have a 2nd house and I'm not going to pay for two accounts to play UO.
     
  9. Return2UO

    Return2UO Guest

    I can't place a house without losing my Europa home.
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    and I figured someone who enjoys crafting and selling their wears would have a great time on siege

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That would be me... [​IMG]
     
  11. I've tried it 2-3 times but never got very far.

    I don't want to be limited to one char.
    I like how fast I can train skills on regular shards because I change templates a lot and don't always soulstone them. Coupled with I never really got to grips with the gain system there.
    Also as the other poster said about housing.

    On the whole it seems to have a lot of restrictions and I don't really see how they benefit anyone or what the point of them are. (if there are reasons it'd be great if someone could post them)

    I seem to remember I was trying to put bushido on my character and you can't buy skills there (?) and the lowest bushido skill requires 25 (?)... I think that was where I got stuck.
     
  12. prostkr

    prostkr Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I've tried it 2-3 times but never got very far.

    I don't want to be limited to one char.
    I like how fast I can train skills on regular shards because I change templates a lot and don't always soulstone them. Coupled with I never really got to grips with the gain system there.
    Also as the other poster said about housing.

    On the whole it seems to have a lot of restrictions and I don't really see how they benefit anyone or what the point of them are. (if there are reasons it'd be great if someone could post them)

    I seem to remember I was trying to put bushido on my character and you can't buy skills there (?) and the lowest bushido skill requires 25 (?)... I think that was where I got stuck.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Had you asked on the boards for a set of jewels to get you to 25, I and many others would have loaned or given you a set.
     
  13. Very limited gameplay.

    As for me I play online to be with other players; Siege is empty.

    ROT is crap.

    One character per account is insane.

    The Siege community that posts on Stratics are not people I would want to play with, personally speaking.

    And for a shard that is supposed to offer something good; why is it getting all the advertising here anyways.

    Guys quit trying to sell something that most people don't want.
     
  14. I'm digging the responses. I always figured it was the skill gain system as that's what kept me away for years. It took me about 3 or 4 tries of playing siege till I finally stuck with it. I would personally love to see them get rid of that because I think the population would double.

    As for housing and storage, there are a lot of people and guilds who would let you store things in their houses if you needed it or until you got a place.

    And you're right about the bushido skill God, that's a problem on Siege. I think with that and Ninja you have to find some jewls to boost you over the cap before you can gain, which is a bit of a pain.
     
  15. I didn't come on here to advertise, I was curious what was keeping from trying it. There's some legitimate points you make which I share with you but assuming a whole shard of people are bad because of some posts is a bit insane in my mind. If you read any forum message boards I think you see pretty much the same amount of crap mixed in with the occasional thing worth reading.
     
  16. davebobbit

    davebobbit Guest

    I made a character a while ago and thought i had got into the whole idea of playing siege but I cant quite put my finger on why i didnt keep it up. I spent ages getting my arms lore and tailoring to GM and havent played it since the day i GM'ed. Kinda thought "ok, so now what??"

    I made a warrior on my second account so i could gather my own leather, but when i hit RoT for him I just couldnt be bothered with it... I dont want to have to think about maximising my gains in order to have a playable character in ONLY 3 months...

    Im not quite sure why I havent been back... It could be any of the following:

    Tedious RoT
    Feeling like there is nothing to do because my character is so lame on skills
    Its empty
    I dont actually enjoy pvp cos im crap at it
    I can only have 1 character on my account
    Feeling like I have to start over again with building friendships etc
     
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I stopped playing siege a few years ago. RoT and the changes made to housing that pulled me away from it full time plus tons of blessed item creeps but has since been changed. also when ever I log in I never see any of my old kgb guild mates anymore. I have 10+ years of old memories collected on my home shard more than any bank box's can hold.
     
  18. It seems a bit too long winded to post asking for jewels to train skills, especially at skill level 0.

    People on Siege are no better/worse than anywhere else. The last time I tried it I was actually checking out how accurate something I heard on here was - that gank squads were jumping people in guard zones endlessly and looting their stuff. I found nothing like that when I went there, quite the opposite in fact, I was friended to a place to train given a weapon and given some gold by some people and pointed towards a 'new to siege' guild.

    I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, it probably does. Just not to the extent it was mentioned at the time.
     
  19. the limited skillgain system is what keeps me away. I don't like that it takes months to build a char.

    change that and hell ya i would play there exclusively.
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    the limited skillgain system is what keeps me away. I don't like that it takes months to build a char.

    change that and hell ya i would play there exclusively.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Hope the devs read this. I think weve come to a common consensus that ROT needs an update. Not removed, just updated so it doesnt take 4 months to get rolling.
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Yarrgh! It is because of players like me! I will slit yer throat and laff while ye bleed out. I'll cut your armor up and smelt your weapons. I will drink yer potions and unravel your bandages!

    If I feel especially randy I will rez ya just to hear your death rattle again!

    *bites the head off of a bat*
     
  22. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Its true. I won't leave my house because I'm afeared that Kelmo will pk me in one hit. [​IMG]
     
  23. Mine is very simple - I'm not a pvp'er. [​IMG]

    I stopped playing Siege when it wasn't fun for me - fighting every time I tried to hunt was not fun. Every now and then was ok and I had a LOT of fun times on Siege over the years but I got tired of being PK fodder.

    *waves to anyone who remembers Ni! on Siege*

    -P.E.
     
  24. 2 reasons for me:
    #1 Only 1 toon allowed per account. I see no reason for that
    #2 No house 4 me. I play a reg shard and wont drop my house there. Living out of a bank is a pain. If only they allowed a 7x7 house to not count towards your 1 house per account allowed.
     
  25. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    #1 Only 1 toon allowed per account. I see no reason for that

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Requires that people not only depend on each other, but makes individuals accountable for their actions. Both helped build our strong community, one of the best parts of the shard.

    <blockquote><hr>

    #2 No house 4 me. I play a reg shard and wont drop my house there. Living out of a bank is a pain. If only they allowed a 7x7 house to not count towards your 1 house per account allowed.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I wish they had some sort of set up where you could rent a room in an inn or expand player homes so that they could run as inns letting friends place 125 item strongboxes again, so long as they had no house on the shard, and had not already placed a strongbox elsewhere to accommodate people not willing to drop their houses on other shards.

    While it would be nice if every one could get a free 7x7 it just wouldn't be fair to those of us who do play the shard as our only shard.
    I would be nice to figure out a way to get more secure space for people trying out the shard though.
     
  26. God, I completely forgot about the Strongboxes from back in the day. It's been a long time. I think something like that would be a good idea and shouldn't be too hard to implement. Whenever I come across a new player I offer them a chest in my house but to have a more reliable and secure system would definitely help out I think.

    Also, I'm seeing wider variety of reasons for abstaining from Siege than I originally thought I would get. We always talk about how Siege is dead or dying and getting these responses helps get to the crux of the matter. In my mind it could be a small fix away from doubling the population and I think it would be a shame if the Dev's didn't at least ponder the idea. Especially since it seems to be the last stop for vets like myself before they pull the plug on the game.
     
  27. Redrum1

    Redrum1 Guest

    My reason is simple. Only one char. I don't need 6 char spots but having only one really limits the game play for me. I have an elder mule on Siege but I would like to be able to build up a fighter also. If they allowed one more char spot I would play more on Siege. The people I met on the shard were great.
     
  28. Guest

    Guest Guest

    One house ~ one shard, one of the main reason why I don't play there more. I have a archer there on Siege and in the old days was fun to pop over and play him. But the old bank box can only hold so much and not having the contacts to replace items lost while dead sucked. Funds are another problem, being you have one charactor only you have to purchase arrows, potions etc.. Traveling is another problem, if you don't gate you walk, rides are a pain unless you old enough to ride an enty, and used a vet reward there to get one..

    <blockquote><hr>

    Archery 110.0 110.0
    Anatomy 101.2 100.2
    Healing 100.0 100.0
    Tactics 100.0 100.0
    Meditation 97.1 97.1 +( 0.1)
    Magic Resistance 86.5 86.5
    Hiding 68.4 68.4
    Magery 56.4 56.4

    Str 102 95 (+7)
    Dex 95 95
    Int 40 40


    [/ QUOTE ]

    His template is above.
     
  29. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    God, I completely forgot about the Strongboxes from back in the day. It's been a long time. I think something like that would be a good idea and shouldn't be too hard to implement.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah and it wouldn't compromise the shard like letting people make more than one character, so its a good idea to try to help people who wish to play there more often.
     
  30. BadManiac

    BadManiac Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    As for housing and storage, there are a lot of people and guilds who would let you store things in their houses if you needed it or until you got a place.

    [/ QUOTE ]In my few attempts at playing Siege, I also have been unable to enjoy it because of lack of housing, and the skillgain system, plus being limited to one char. But all this community talk makes me laugh. My experience of Siege community interaction, from trying to train a character, would go like this:
    "Hi excuse me"
    *whack*
    "o00o0o0oo"
    Or
    "Hey, could I store some stuff in your hou..."
    *whack*
    "0ooo000oo"
    I don't play siege because it sucks.
     
  31. Silly Seadog

    Stratics Veteran It's My Birthday

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    7
    Arrr, the last time me was on Siege, it consisted of me new character attemptin' t' do some escorts, runnin' into a couple of blue bullies, their bravery consisted of yellin' at their hidden red friend to "KILL HIM!!!", which he finally did do, after apparently ignorin' them for a few minutes. I were very impressed, me self-made dull copper armor be strong stuff!! Howe'er, me visits to Siege have been mostly uneventful.
     
  32. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    and I figured someone who enjoys crafting and selling their wears would have a great time on siege

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That would be me... [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]
    That was what I had planned too. Made a Smith/ miner. Now I wonder why I didn't make a tailor?
     
  33. I used to play siege a lot.

    I got bored with pvp.
     
  34. One thing for me that you would think shouldn't be a big deal, but kinda is...

    I feel like if I could have a small or medium sized house on Siege in addition to my large one on my home shard, it would make a big difference.

    It's just so strange to have nowhere to go home to in UO. It doesn't feel right, it's like your guy should be at 'home' back on your normal shard instead of on siege.

    And I don't really want to open up a second account just to feel at home on Siege, that would be goofy.
     
  35. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    One thing for me that you would think shouldn't be a big deal, but kinda is...

    I feel like if I could have a small or medium sized house on Siege in addition to my large one on my home shard, it would make a big difference.

    It's just so strange to have nowhere to go home to in UO. It doesn't feel right, it's like your guy should be at 'home' back on your normal shard instead of on siege.

    And I don't really want to open up a second account just to feel at home on Siege, that would be goofy.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Your character should be "at home" on the shard you primarily play on. If you play on Siege, then it makes sense your home should be there. If Siege isn't "home" then there is really no issue about no house.

    This is an old subject, but personally, I haven't ever seen any objection from either Siege citizens or regular shard folks about increased bank storage (i.e. 250 items) or some provision in an existing player home for secure storage for a visitor, such as the old strong box system, and that seems a better way to handle it, to make things easier for part time Siegers while keeping things fair for those that "live" there.

    Consider, would you want me taking up housing space on your "home" shard so I can play there every now and then when I feel like it, while keeping my "main" home on 1 account on Siege?

    -Skylark
     
  36. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Yarrgh! It is because of players like me! I will slit yer throat and laff while ye bleed out. I'll cut your armor up and smelt your weapons. I will drink yer potions and unravel your bandages!

    If I feel especially randy I will rez ya just to hear your death rattle again!

    *bites the head off of a bat*

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Can someone please come help me, stat?

    I just found Kelmo huddled over a headless bat, rocking back and forth, crying.

    [​IMG]

    -Skylark
     
  37. I do not play Siege for the following reasons:

    1. I am well-established on my home shard;

    2. I played before Trammel and I prefer post-Trammel greatly;

    3. I once made a character on Siege, some years back, and was PKed old-school, meaning that I was PKed at the new player spawn point, in guard zone. (Yes, this was long before Ninjitsu and so I was not in Animal Form. And no I didn't do something "wrong" and go gray as soon as I spawned.)

    -Galen's player
     
  38. Guest

    Guest Guest

    No it is not silly nor a small issue. I fathom it entirely because I DO have multiple accounts so this permits me TO keep my oldest UO accounts still, on Chesapeake, the 9 and 10 yr. old accts still keep their homes there, yet my younger 3rd and 4th account which had Chesapeake homes were the two accounts I put ON Siege for houses.

    I know many have asked that the dev. team make larger bank boxes to help with the housing issue of one acct. one home allowed only on one shard, to help those whom wish to keep their original home on their original shard, so that when they are on Siege they get more bank box room.

    Only problem with that is every holiday every anniversary our *UO gifts* can not be put up in a *bankbox* you can not put up a stuffy nor christmas tree in a bankbox even if that bankbox went to 300-1000 items, a bankbox won't make you feel *at home* on Siege, if ya can not put up a hearth, or christmas tree on Siege...nor even own your own loom..without a home ...a bankbox even if it held 1000 items is not *a home*, nor can a bankbox offer you a chair to sit upon nor a christmas tree to gaze at without a home to put those into.

    Housing of one home per one account IS an issue why others will not give up years old homes of long established chrs. to just toss it all away to go to Siege, some folks are multisharded nor should that be some crime, to wish to be so, in that some will have long time friends on the shard they ARE upon and make NEW friends on Siege and wish to play there equally ........yet without a place to hang their hat and christmas tree, well even a 1k item bankbox won't cut it. NOR will everyone wish to give up 10 or 9 or 8 or 4 yr old homes holding all our *junk* to just toss out tons of memories, to strictly start it all over again on Siege.

    My main chr. on Siege now has as many nearly fond *pixel junk memories in her Siege home as does my oldest chr. ever has on Chesapeake..only made possible cuz I PAY *for* multiple accounts. And as much beloved as my lil Siege crafter is to me NOW, whom has earned her stripes on SIEGE, you still would not see me take my 10 yr old and toss her out like trash on Chesapeake...no SHE remains there where she was born, her life is THERE, yet my lil one on Siege, her life is THERE. [​IMG] *but only cuz I have multiple accounts*

    IF I had to THROW out my original chr. on Ches and her home, for Siege, I could not DO that ..I make characters, whom make a life for themselves on whatever shard I may create them, and those whom have a life on any other shards that are not Ches. or Siege also, remain homeless due to my owning homes on Chessie AND Siege. So those other chrs. never feel at home on Europa nor draken nor Sonoma cuz they are stuck living out of a bankbox full of christmas trees and crystal shadow items they can not *put up* since they remain homeless on other shards.

    With rl economy as it is, and UO EA in the state it is in, for better and worse, people have to rationalise the amt. of accounts they wish to maintain to pay for due to one house per acct. period and so, it has limited us all. I would not wish for them to permit us to have housing on one single acct. everywhere on every shard cuz this would limit land that those whom use the shards most need to live upon ..yet it would be nice if they permitted us all to have 2 homes per acct. especially those with only 1 account active..to enable them to have a second home on Siege or wherever which would better permit them to BE dual sharded.
    I enjoy being on two main shards siege and ches. myself, I like the diversity of BOTH I am sure others would be the same IF they could have a home the size of a vila on SIEGE and their reg. shard too, more might play on Siege, but EA wants us to pay them more per month, if we wish 2 homes, on same shard or two shards, to do so takes making multiple accts. paying for it, so their ruling remains.

    There would be some that would say ..if one really enjoys Siege then even with one account that will then become where you place your main house and you will dump all the homes or home items you have on reg. shard to play Siege. Well, IF one were to SELL their acct. it would surely make more money on a reg. shard, if all the items, home, rares or old pixel things were kept IN TACT..on reg. shard than probably selling the same acct with ONLY a Siege home thus newer not even having the old stuff of old uo. *somewhat kinda logical to keep the established acct. *as is* where it is..yet if it is one's ONLY account, one can give it all up FOR siege or remain where they are, for many their OLD pixel junk even if it is a pile of snow or a vet reward there...is what they may have fonder memories OF, hard to dump it all. . so unless they DO open another acct. to place home on Siege, they may NOT do it..hard to dump some acct. that maybe has the first etheral ever created or whispering rose with the chrs. name on it, or a grandfathered home in fel side on reg shard also an *antique* just being a fel ancient UO grandfathered home on a reg. shard. So it is hard for one acct. to just dump it all to then place a home on Siege. Many customers would wish to keep both..the ancient past of their reg. shard intact AND siege but due to the housing rule for one home per one acct. per one shard, aye it can not be done.

    And we can not put up a hearth, nor fountain nor apple tree ...from/in even a 1000 itemed... bankbox !
     
  39. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Very limited gameplay.

    As for me I play online to be with other players; Siege is empty.

    ROT is crap.

    One character per account is insane.

    The Siege community that posts on Stratics are not people I would want to play with, personally speaking.

    And for a shard that is supposed to offer something good; why is it getting all the advertising here anyways.

    Guys quit trying to sell something that most people don't want.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Agreed accept add 1 house per account.I like playing pac and would give siege a fair shot if changes were made.
     
  40. Guest

    Guest Guest

  41. Guest

    Guest Guest

    And the *one chr. per acct.* back when they created Siege in 99 made more sense THEN, because it created players needing other players skills etc. ie dependancy upon each other thus more of a sense of community. The pvpers would not be able to craft thus they would NEED the crafters, the crafters would suck at pvp thus need protection from the pvpers, by other pvpers whom become their friends etc., and so on so forth.

    But BUT with the age of soulstones, NOW the one acct. gets only one character barely makes any sense like it did back in '99. With the purchase and gifting of soulstones and soul stone fragments, and the wealthier a chr. acct. is, the more of these they can buy, or get, many even if they only HAVE ONE acct. can be just about any and every template that exists on ONE chr. with enough soul stones and soulstone fragments one chr. can be their own city army and so forth with the SE soulstone soulstone frags now added all over Siege just like any other shard has..so ONE chr. now can become multi talented needing depending upon others FAR less than ever before.

    So nowadays post SE expansion soulstones, the one chr. per acct. on Siege, does not quite stack up to the intent it was originally meant to be ..dependancy upon others to build community...with soulstones it is nearly a moot point nowadays. Yes they still NEED crafters there but not like before, cuz now the most roxxorsjoo pvper can also have 120 tailoring 100 lore 110 smithing and even carpentry and tinkering.........blinking on soulstones in their keeps on Siege. AND MANY DO have all that on ONE chr. via soulstones.

    So, the 1999 intent of Siege with the original one chr. permitted per acct. creating dependancey thus needing each other, thus building community, now is.............eradicated with Soulstones and SE to some degree.
     
  42. I actually have a character on Siege Perilous. I trained the skills up to maybe 50 or 60. Basically I find Siege a very good idea. I despise the splitting of the world into Trammel and Felucca, as well as damn insurance. The reasons why I don't play on Siege currently are the following:

    I have no idea how big the community on Siege is. Whenever I logged in, I didn't see many people there. Maybe I just haven't looked enough, but my impression is that population on Siege is much lower than on other shards. To me, the community is the most important thing of UO. That's why a shard with too few players is not an option for me.

    I like to be independent. Especially, if there are not enough guild mates or players around. When I need a piece of armor or a weapon, I want to be able to craft one (I sometimes play at unorthodox times). Also, I have a lot of fun crafting things and exploring new skills, without having to play a pure crafting character. Therefore I have my mules on Catskills. On Siege I am FORCED to depend on other players. Which would be good, if Siege had three times the population than any other shard has. But it hasn't.

    I am all against people having multiple houses. I hate landscapes cluttered with ugly player buildings. However, only having a house (even if it is small 7x7) makes me feel at home on a shard. It is a thing of individuality. I am not willing to give up what I have on my home shard Catskills.


    I actually consider the slow skill advancement on Siege a good thing. In my opinion, things are too easy and on a normal shard. Which leads to people reaching their goals too fast and then being bored. I watch people playing only to increase their skill to max, then fight a few bosses for artifacts, and then they don't know what to do anymore. Those players skipped all that what makes the game fun. Exploring newbie dungeons. Fighting rats and skeletons. Making a simple (not exceptional) chain mail armor and be happy with it. Exploring the wilderness of Britannia and killing occasional Trolls or Harpies. And so on.
     
  43. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    One thing for me that you would think shouldn't be a big deal, but kinda is...

    I feel like if I could have a small or medium sized house on Siege in addition to my large one on my home shard, it would make a big difference.

    It's just so strange to have nowhere to go home to in UO. It doesn't feel right, it's like your guy should be at 'home' back on your normal shard instead of on siege.

    And I don't really want to open up a second account just to feel at home on Siege, that would be goofy.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Your character should be "at home" on the shard you primarily play on. If you play on Siege, then it makes sense your home should be there. If Siege isn't "home" then there is really no issue about no house.

    This is an old subject, but personally, I haven't ever seen any objection from either Siege citizens or regular shard folks about increased bank storage (i.e. 250 items) or some provision in an existing player home for secure storage for a visitor, such as the old strong box system, and that seems a better way to handle it, to make things easier for part time Siegers while keeping things fair for those that "live" there.

    Consider, would you want me taking up housing space on your "home" shard so I can play there every now and then when I feel like it, while keeping my "main" home on 1 account on Siege?

    -Skylark

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I don't feel like I should feel limited to expressly one shard. But at the same time, I'm acutely aware of the housing nightmares that can happen when people can place lots of houses. Most of my years in UO were spent living out of one of those 1 room stone and plaster houses. Having too many houses on a shard is hellish, absolutely hellish. I accept the one-account-one-house rule because I remember what it was like without it. Even one-house-per-shard would be a nightmare if they were all allowed to be large houses.

    The private shard I made had almost no player housing allowed within the normal shard lands. Almost all of the housing was in green acres. I didn't take an opinion poll when I set it up this way, I decided and did it, and the players found that they liked being able to charge through the world and experience it like the world it really was, instead of so much of it being a gigantic housing district.

    But having said those things, to address something you said. If you wanted just one small house on any one non-siege shard (let's say, my home shard in this case), and you had a total of one large house (siege) and one small one (my shard), that wouldn't represent an imbalance IMO. You getting to have one small house on each production shard would be too much, though.

    Siege is an entirely different kind of shard (and it's not like it's so overpopulated that they are looking to open a second Siege). It's uniqueness is why it makes sense to me that people could have one small house on Siege without needing to pitch their large one elsewhere. And then maybe, one day, they might decide to make Siege be the "home" shard and put a big house there. It's not really necessary (although also not objectionable) to allow a the converse, which would be a small house on a production shard. Siege is the different and odd shard that people want to try out and begin to feel at home on.
     
  44. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Aye, Chesapeake was torn to shreads community destoyed with making two facets, guilds tore apart, player run towns shattered with some going to trammel some remaining in felucca yet the ONEness destroyed when they we were all one community in ONE facet one uo world of one ruleset. And reg. shards because of the division, many players whom may be even the good *red guys* can not go to Zento, or wherever cuz on reg. shard it is *tram* ruleset on most of the latter expansions yet on Siege every expansion IS the same one ruleset..be it malas, tokono, heartwood, ilshener, it is all fel ruleset there. *so that in and of itself makes what is left of the community still sharing the same *facet* but the land so vast with smaller population there, seem devoid of humanity at times. *plus lots of us stealth * hehe can't see us anyhow even if 50 would be at a bank ! [​IMG]

    But I feel it also, I log in even my own guild allies, busy doing sigils, or fights, we all see each other as *online* in guild roster but no one saying nothing especially if they are busy fighting, and I am a crafter sooooooooo often lonely now more so than how siege was even 2 - 3 yrs ago for my own self there UNLESS I too become a pvper pk or factioner, I made crafters cuz one they WERE needed and two, it sure seemed really DUMB that players were insuring my Queen Zen thigh boots which I only priced at 150gp ...on Chesapeake like ummmmmmm the boots cost em 150 gp only insuring them seemed really silly [​IMG] like ok I got nothing to DO here anymore as *crafter* on Chessie..so I made 2 crafters on Siege and one stealthing ninja archer. [​IMG] Ya won't see her though. [​IMG]

    Oddly now I am finding folks so fed up with Luna malls overpricing, my carpenter on Chesapeake is making MORE than my carpenter now can on Siege, yet just briefly a yr. ago the one on Siege was far busier than any crafters I had on Ches. now it seems to be reversing with more Ches. folks fed up with Luna high prices they are all our scouring the lands to find a loom for *normal prices* with the rarer woods etc. my looms addons chairs, masonry, alchemy still LESS than luna so NOW...almost like some revolt on Ches. my crafters there are now doing more business than by crafters had been doing on Siege..go figure total reversal of just a yr ago. per shard. *go figure*

    I enjoy crafting so I have those templates on both shards. But yes due to ROT although I like ROT, I have the OLD pvpers and pvmers still on Chesapeake, just did not feel like working all those up again..via ROT, the crafting ones on ROT made more sense, less torching of resources with ROT ! [​IMG]
     
  45. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It is about choices. You aren't limited to playing on any specific shard in any way now, but you ARE required to make a hard choice about where to place your one and only house. To my way of thinking, this is one of the single most BALANCED things they ever did in the game - one house per account. And I am a person who loves customized housing in UO.

    I have said before, if you make exceptions to this, where do you draw the line? Someone will always want more. We know it, because we see it all the time hereabouts. [​IMG]

    When there are ways to make Siege more convenient for players to try out extensively, without doing a disservice to the ones that play there exclusively, I see no reason to push for something that will make things more convenient for "testers" AND create a potentially great disservice to the confirmed "residents".

    -Skylark

    P.S. using the size of the house as a justification, is a fallacy in reality. A person can block the space for a much larger house, with a small house depending on how they place it, thus "wasting" the space. I have seen this, where you can't even squeeze the smallest classic house into a space because of how other houses were placed over time, that are wasting a great deal of "in between" space
     
  46. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Yeh I would like to see EA UO customers whom have an acct lg home on one shard to be able to at least put up a log cabin or vila size home somewhere else be it Siege or somewhere. A log cabin or vila is not that that huge, it does feel more home like than a small marble minitwr which oft for most of us is just TOO small.

    Yet most of us COULD feel quite at home in some 9 x 13/14 or log cabin or vila 10 x 10 even if that was all we could get as a second home on *one acct* we could be perfectly happy then with that option to keep our large main house whatever shard intact and then get a vila or log cabin size somewhere else on same one acct. and neither of those really hogs up land spaces like twrs or even the classic L or lg. marble would.
     
  47. Guest

    Guest Guest

    [​IMG] cuz we as customers, want it all *on less accts* ! HEHE [​IMG]
     
  48. <blockquote><hr>

    It is about choices. You aren't limited to playing on any specific shard in any way now, but you ARE required to make a hard choice about where to place your one and only house. To my way of thinking, this is one of the single most BALANCED things they ever did in the game - one house per account. And I am a person who loves customized housing in UO.

    I have said before, if you make exceptions to this, where do you draw the line? Someone will always want more. We know it, because we see it all the time hereabouts. [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    One would draw the line based upon where the situation itself leads, I can't say on that really...

    I'm with you on the one house per account thing, like I'd said in the other post. But Siege is kinda a world unto itself. People who want to try it and have no house at all do not feel as encouraged to continue as they would otherwise, and that's just the nature of the beast.

    <blockquote><hr>

    When there are ways to make Siege more convenient for players to try out extensively, without doing a disservice to the ones that play there exclusively, I see no reason to push for something that will make things more convenient for "testers" AND create a potentially great disservice to the confirmed "residents".

    -Skylark

    P.S. using the size of the house as a justification, is a fallacy in reality. A person can block the space for a much larger house, with a small house depending on how they place it, thus "wasting" the space. I have seen this, where you can't even squeeze the smallest classic house into a space because of how other houses were placed over time, that are wasting a great deal of "in between" space

    [/ QUOTE ]

    That's true on using the small houses to interfere with the placement of larger ones and, in the end, waste space. Straying away from what I perceive they are willing to actually do..... it would be ideal for any additional, small houses for the more experimental Siege players to be in an area not normally availble for housing. Having them construct a large apartment building somewhere would work just fine! Or, let us put our little houses in Green Acres! Okay well, back to reality....

    Considering those points, I'd say that any secondary houses on siege should require grandfather-like refreshing to prevent them from dropping. Someone could come and want to try siege, and then not come back for a very long time, and for the house to drop on it's own in a week is smart.

    All things taken together and with the additional change above, I still feel like people should be able to have a small house on siege in addition to one they might have on a regular shard. I acknowledge that more houses will in all cases represent an additional thought for anyone already on siege. At the same time, the newer players on siege kinda have just as much a right to get to really try it and experience it as anyone else, including established players there. It just doesn't feel right without a house of some sort (QueenZen talked about this in detail in another post).
     
  49. <blockquote><hr>

    I have said before, if you make exceptions to this, where do you draw the line?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Interesting to note that even the smaller customizeable houses are not really big enough to be constructed in a way that can keep its occupants safe from people on the outside casting fields halfway into the building. Double walling the smaller ones and having any space left inside of them to actually do anything is, hm. yeah. The small, classic houses like that stone-and-plaster are entirely vulnerable to things like that.

    People in such houses aren't getting a free ride, for sure, with those kinds of house security issues. I'd still take a small house on Siege over nothing, though. At least with a small house and its relatively few items, moving to a new location isn't so bad!

    If I were the admin who was to decide what kind of secondary house people could be allowed to place on Siege, for simplicity purposes I'd limit the classic houses to the houses on the first page of the house placement tool, and allow customizeable houses where both of the numbers in the measurements were 9 or lower (smallest 7x7 largest 9x9).

    Grandfather-like refreshing of such houses would absolutely be the way to go.
     
  50. BajaElladan

    BajaElladan Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    3
    For the same reasons I dont visit Felucca with any of my characters.

    Simple, concise, reasonable.