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
  3. Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
    Dismiss Notice

In the case of a server being closed...

Discussion in 'UHall' started by SchezwanBeefy, Jan 19, 2011.


Would you move servers if necessary?

  1. Yes, I would move.

    67 vote(s)
  2. No, I would close my accounts.

    58 vote(s)
  3. Other (please specify!)

    6 vote(s)
  1. Lady Michelle

    Lady Michelle Sprite Full SP
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend The DarkOutlaws, TDO

    May 12, 2008
    Likes Received:

    It's easier to try, and get shards consolidate then to log into uogamecodes, and buy a transfer token to move to a busy shard.
  2. Tinsil

    Tinsil Guest

    I wish they would consolidate shards.

    LS/Legends ?

    ATL/GL are fine.

    Not sure on the exact pop of all these servers.. but something like this would set us for a while, and hopefully not overpopulate everything TOO much. :pancakes:
  3. 4th3ist

    4th3ist Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Jan 18, 2004
    Likes Received:
    I don't know if this has been suggested, but couldn't they simply connect the Dungeons and other map chunks together for shards in similar regions? This would be kinda cool. Hell, even Illshenar could be a shared facet due to the no housing issue..
  4. Tinsil

    Tinsil Guest

    This would be nice. And allow cross-shard moongate or something for the rest of the stuff. I know they'd have to be careful for dupes, but something like this would work.
  5. Goodmann

    Goodmann Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Jul 15, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Vote - Should we discuss this once a week for the next 5 years? Give it a rest. if your shard is not populated enough move to one that is.
  6. Cloak&Dagger

    Cloak&Dagger Guest

    The less people play the more people quit, the more people quit the less people there are playing and thus more people quit. What you are suggesting does not address this issue, it does not even address the issue of the "empty" feeling almost all new and returning players will get unless they log onto One, MAYBE two servers at most which actually have an active player base.

    UO has no real life monetary value and thus no one at EA or mythic are thinking about possible lawsuits. If they shut down the servers today the same would be in affect as what you just said.

    I mentioned how to "compensate" for your "loss" by not having you have a loss, you would still have those characters just because they are all the same does not mean anything. If they simply decided to just close the shards with the least daily players, thus minimizing their losses, would you quit then too?

    The problem being addressed has nothing really to do with the physical servers but rather the amount of space over which the current population of UO is spread out on.

    I have characters on about half of the American servers. I am not unaware of the situation, I simply only consider what currently is happening with the game and what will happen if it progresses the way it is. Granted this is not the "only" possible solution, but this is one of the best "instant" solutions to any shard population issues.
  7. EX_UO Player

    EX_UO Player Guest

    The argument is from posts that I have read in many different topics is the lack of resources and dev team. A project of this magnitude would be more then they can handle at the moment.

    I highly doubt you will ever see an increase in the dev team to do such a project even in the near and far future. It be easier and more feasible to build a new UO game from scratch. To many bugs or mishaps could happen with such a massive change.

    All it would take a person to lose all their characters and belongings and the system would not be trusted. Who wants to be the first guinea pig if they did try this? Most people would wait for others to try first. There is no guarnatee that the first did ok with no problem then it work 100% all the time. Just be that one day in the hour that 100 people moved and they lose all their stuff.

    I think this topic comes at a bad timing. Not saying it's not a good topic to discuss. Just not at this time. Oceania is having a big issue though it's a different situation with the servers being moved. If this was North America's shard issue I bet there be plenty of angry posts.
  8. Cloak&Dagger

    Cloak&Dagger Guest

    I feel for Oceania and think they should put the server back....or stop being vague and tell them to stop paying because they will never be able to play again.

    There would be no "trying" or "waiting" because it would not be like transfer tokens, the developers would simply merge two server saves with each other. There really should be little margin for error.
  9. EX_UO Player

    EX_UO Player Guest

    Well it would be a massive issue when you see posts if they can have their same house location and house full of items. If it was just a regular transfer and take what you can carry on your characters. Then hopefully go find you a new home if there is a suitable spot to their liking and hold it all. I see no issue if it's just a regular transfer. It's an issue when a player wants the same house spot on another shard that another player on the shard already has that spot. One post suggested like 2 trams , 2 fels and so on which cant be done.

    Another issue would be for players who have established characters on many different shards on one account. Should they have to pick and choose which characters they want to keep? If they are forced to move to that one shard they already have 5 chars on and delete them? They would most likely have to so they can move their items from the shard they used as home to collect stuff and lived. Lots of issues there.
  10. Cloak&Dagger

    Cloak&Dagger Guest

    If you read up a little to where I quoted mapper, you will see I offered an idea for how to handle the characters on both shard issue. And having 2 trams and 2 fels can be done....not sure why you think it can't, copy map info from one server, rename it to fel-2 Or any other name you wish, and viola done. This is not as complicated as some people seem to think it is....

    The only "real" issue is having characters in both shards that are being merged (or all 3 shards as has been suggested in another post)
  11. Lady Storm

    Lady Storm Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Feb 20, 2006
    Likes Received:

    We are down to under 100k of actual players (taking into account all the multi account holders so roughly 60k give or take 10k)
    This includes asian and oz populations.

    Question to merge shards down to a more fuller population per shard....

    At first I want to yell " ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVER LOVIN TREE!!!!!!!"

    But that wont solve your question. My question to this is who looses and who wins??

    Your analagy is way one sided. The recieving shard players get to keep their beloved homes an the incomming shard players are put out in the cold to hunt for a scrap of land to try to regain their homes?? I can bet my bottom dollar that if given that choice players will quit. You might say oh thats jut the castle owner talking.... WRONG. I have tiny houses I wouldnt give up for all the TEA in CHINA!!

    OK lets see your way.....

    Pacific is low population shard, so its gets merged with say Sonoma.....
    In your script you said Pac would get full movement of its population settled on Sonoma with compensation for property..... ONE BIG FLAW JR (sorry cant help the sarcasim)

    Tina has a point... where and who is going to suffer the loss of their precious home??
    Where are my 6/7 characters going to fit when I have already 6/7 characters on that shard to begin with?? And that account that has a house that is grandfathered??

    No its not fair to make a new shard out of 2 and make all run for a house placement. Fastest way I can think to get that many players to quit UO. Years of heart and soul are sitting in a few houses I own on Napa.. Catskills ... Pac... etc....

    I have read everyones troubles with this and I agree with Petra Your all rushing to jump over into that deep water thinking the boats sinking........ Talk about lemmings!!!

    The trouble with blending any 2 shards is this: Housing and characters.
    I for one have tons of grandfathered homes on many of the shards and most of my accounts are full booked with characters. Yes I know we need to do something but to what end?? Your talking of eliminating 1/2 of the shards to 2/3s. Just to fill the gaps in people?
    There is an old saying that go's something like this: "the road is paved with good intentions.."

    Oh it will buy us time.... I seriously doubt it. If you have been living with your heads in the sand let me help you understand the problem. Money is tight everywhere. Citys are cutting back fire and police jobs to make ends meet. Familys are going a bit thread bare to hungry to keep a roof over their heads.. California alone is 12.4 % unemployed. Where and what does this mean to a game like UO? It means UO is dead last on their minds.
    I dont know about you but I personaly know of over 50 people who lost their jobs, many are living in apartments now rather then their house which the bank took. Three familys are now living with their parents, with kids cramped in small bedrooms meant for a single kid. Alot of pets went to shelters in hopes of finding them a home( 90% were put down).

    If the cash cow that UO has been to EA is gunna die it will be because EA pulls the plug.

    Not low population.

    EA is under a big cloud of stock losses that cant be fixed by just cutting us off the game.

    I estamate EA makes off us playing UO per year 11million +. UO is still profetable, EA's troubles are its stretched too thin in a bad ecconomy and rather then let its board of directors take a pay cut they would rather thin the house of usefull talent and do job cuts to the bare bones.

    (puts soapbox away) ok guys I am tired of the thoughts you put in my head ..... I dont need this crap to bring on another stroke. Let's stop second guessing and do like Petra said. Let EA/Mythic/Bio do its thing....
  12. Hunters' Moon

    Hunters' Moon Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran

    Oct 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    @ Lady Storm.

    Your post above is why,I feel,there would be no shard mergers. If it came to cost-cutting with UO;it would be all or nothing. If the subs fell to such a level that UO was no longer profitable,EA's Board of Directors would call for a complete shutdown of the game.
  13. sorry bout your soap box ... but ...

    Sub's equal money ... not warm bodies ... and if EAetal HAD these millio's you guess ...
    They couldn't afford to leave Oce in place?

    That indicates the pie is rather thinly sliced ...
    if they can't afford the crumbs to change nothing >For Oce< ...

    I suppose all the couch cushions have already been flipped in private ... :danceb:
  14. Hunters' Moon

    Hunters' Moon Grand Inquisitor
    Stratics Veteran

    Oct 19, 2004
    Likes Received:
    EA/Mythic could be making the millions but perhaps the head bean-counter(The CFO) sees the bottom line and thinks there there could be even more profit made from UO. So it is possible the CFO is saying "There must be more earnings for the shareholders!Cut something!"
  15. :talktothehand:Please ...

    Service Updates
    Please to have your papers ready with planet of origin / destination and visa stamps aligned with business or pleasure as listed for travel permissions and reasons for your visit.

  16. EX_UO Player

    EX_UO Player Guest

    Interesting link. UO is not a console game. Comparing apples to oranges. Not saying in EA's eyes they could see apples and oranges as the same. I see your point and you make a valid one. UO is older then all of the games and still online compared to the games in that link.

    Oceania situation is very odd to me. American shards, at least some, have very low populations. So its not a smart move to drive off a player base in another country and put that shard on a continent that is having low population shards. Lowers in coming revenue if they are losing players and not replenishing them. Shard consolidation is not the answer either. I don't even think UO has 50k accounts.
  17. Cloak&Dagger

    Cloak&Dagger Guest

    Who's analogy? You take two shards and move them to an entirely new one. There is no receiving shard. Also I laid out the perfect way to merge the servers, it is just time consuming for the developers/GMS who have to do the actual work. The only people who I understand having a complaint is people like Poo, and I can relate to their plight although I do not feel strongly about it as they do.

    As for the "boat sinking", lets be serious here. We are not trying to cut costs for EA, you may want to rethink about where the original post comes from, and why the idea is put on the table to begin with. So how about stop thinking about EA bottom line and come back to reality where the rest of us are ok?
  18. Deneya

    Deneya Guest

    I disagree - we can judge on the lack of communication.
  19. hen

    hen Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Jul 2, 2008
    Likes Received:
    The treatment of our brothers and sisters on Oceania is indefencible.
  20. TheScoundrelRico

    TheScoundrelRico Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend Secret Society

    Aug 12, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Eventually the number of shards will need to be lowered. Unless the devs plan to just discontinue the game when the population drops to a certain level, the only way to shrink their overhead will to have fewer servers to oversee...la
  21. Assumes "the devs" have a plan.
    Assumes "the devs" HAVE the power to make a decision.
    Assumes that there will be a NEED to amputate shards ...:thumbdown: ...La!
  22. Evlar

    Evlar Guest

    Or it could be seen as a new beginning. A fresh start and outlook.
  23. :lol: yeah right ...
    We all hold that view upon the death of a dear friend, even the imaginary ones like Santa Claus ... :thumbdown:
  24. TheScoundrelRico

    TheScoundrelRico Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Alumni Stratics Legend Secret Society

    Aug 12, 2001
    Likes Received:
    I don't "assume" I "presume"...la
  25. phantus

    phantus Stratics Legend
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Jun 11, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I wish to buy you a chicken dinner sir. :pancakes:
  26. ... La!
    You have demonstrated a lack of practice. Assumptions acted upon trump the presumptions that caused their actions.
    A presumption formed of a fallacy, is not corrected by an assumption presented.
    and whether the horse precedes the cart or stumbles along after ...
    There STILL is no driver to be transported.

    rates a :danceb:
  27. Cloak&Dagger

    Cloak&Dagger Guest

    You can't honestly say that at the current rate there will not be a need to remove some of the servers....Granted, what method they do this in is up for debate, but still. With no influx of new accounts/players and a steady flow of people canceling accounts/quitting, simple math can get you the conclusion that either they shut down or improvise by lowering over head. Or it might have nothing to do with over head and eventually ever shard has 10 players....and they just make it 1 shard with 200 *shrugs*
  28. canary

    canary Guest

    Years ago I'd say heck no...

    In past months I would be more accepting an open. A return to larger groups to rp with, play with, fight beside, etc would be welcome.
  29. You err in that assumption sirrah
    I honestly do believe that the amputation of ONE server WILL likely cause the service itself to die.
    That is my honest opinion.

    Its correctness will be decided one way or the other

    AT the first cut ...
    PARTICULARLY ... if they try to sneak it in(that first cut).

    You need to get beyond colorless hypotheticals and apply whatever knowledge you may have of the LIKELY emotional response of the "community" upon perceiving that it is in anyway "under the knife".

    Your "assumption/hypothetical" that it could be a slow transition down to 1 shard of 200 ...
    when considering the "community"

    is absurd sirrah.

    Witness the calm of the Oce situation ... which, iirc, you saw as not having ANY application or parrallel that maybe "relevant".

    I know people ... I know the "community" of UO well.

    We shall see then ... shan't we.:twak:
  30. Lord Gareth

    Lord Gareth UO Content Editor | UO Chesapeake & Rares News
    Stratics Veteran Wiki Moderator Alumni Stratics Legend

    Dec 17, 2006
    Likes Received:
    If the Chesapeake Shard shut down...

    I would move to Baja and live with WildStar in the Kingdom of Dawn and hope my friends come as well. (Don't care if she likes it or not I'll sick Warder on her.)

    If Baja wasn't an option and my friends would come. I would move to Catskills and live in the city of Olympus. If Katherine and Rotep wont let me move in, then I would egg their homes daily and live in my boat house on the shore of Olympus.

    Both options out? Then again if my friends would come then I would move to the Pacific shard and harass Sandman and Crystal Rose. Then I would torture their EM staff by chasing them through the streets with explosion pots (I'm sure they really want me there now)

    What all those are gone? Then I will move to Seige...yea NOT! Next!
    *Runs and hides from Kelmo, QZ and Petra*

    I would move to Atlantic because I know I wont have to move for awhile since its the largest shard. Oh an my friends have to come.

    Buildings, my great historic Buildings mean jack squat to me without the people I built them with. Its the people that I play this game with, not the server that makes UO worth it to me. Our great shard history means so much to me....not really. The shard history is of people that left the game to go play Everquest and WOW etc. These great historic sites that means so much are for people that haven't even played UO for eight years, they are empty ghost locations. So in closing, I could play on any server as long as the people I play with continue on and stay together no matter where we end up.
  31. Auranmorte

    Auranmorte Guest

    I believe it is community which is the most important in an MMORPG (unfortunately most companies do not agree with me). As Lord Gareth says, IF his community continues, the location doesn't really matter.

    Having said that, I've been through server mergers in DAOC. In my opinion and experience, mergers destroy community. So I voted no... if there are mergers, I will simply let my characters and their things fade into the ether.
  32. I would like to see servers consolidated, but in this way:

    1. Create a new server that will replace 2 current servers.
    2. New server would have most housing placement restrictions removed.
    3. Set aside an additional town to relocate lost Luna houses to, since there will only be one Luna on new server. Would like to see someplace like Trinsic with player houses.
    4. New characters can't be created on new server to start, and freeze character creation on old servers.
    5. Set closing date for old servers.
    6. Give each character on closing servers a transfer token to any new server.
    7. Make old houses completely re-deedable as-is with all customization, deco, and items to be re-placed as-is on new server.
    8. Allow creation of new characters on new server after all transfers are complete.
    9. Of course, it may be necessary to increase character slots to accomodate players being moved from 2 servers to 1.

    Repeat for all servers until the number is halved. Hell, repeat it again the following year so all servers are halved again if need be. Whatever keeps the game alive.

    Before any of this ever would be considered, if EA wanted to look to eliminate servers for reasons of cost or gameplay, they could simply just give out transfer tokens (or greatly reduce price, or make available as in game quest) and see where the populations settle. After that, it might be a lot easier to pick which to close down. They could also pull back stats on login frequency and actual players and player-hours per server; this would further make it easier to choose.

    However they did things, as long as no player lost a single thing in the process and had housing opportunity on new servers, I completely endorse merging/consolidation.
  33. Zyon Rockler

    Zyon Rockler Guest

    I think what they should do, is create incentive for people to leave their current shards with good reason and also, at the same time, try to rebuild a new UO for a future.

    Investing money into something like this saves money and allows for an opportunity for improvement in the overall game.

    Create a new shard with a new map, build Brit like it is but bigger, add the dungeons into a larger space, more water ways, tougher terrains with more spawn types. Connect all landmasses by water, place timers on recalling and gating, so, you need a boat or have to walk. Make it so you can only place the boat one time.

    Build cities so players can live in them. Allow for bigger homes, private docks, farms. Predesign houses in cities. Allow homes for renting. Require business liscensing, for things like stables, banks, and healers.

    A new type of menu would be added to all buildings. So, if you click on a house sign you could see what type of business you could run there or if there is a chest for rent, what taxes would cost if you moved in.

    If players do not move in, let NPCs live there until a player moves in. Create NPC housing, all types of NPCs, thieves, murderers, paladins, great mages, tamers, all types of NPCs. Give them neat lives with cool abilities to train or sell things of rarity with stories to tell.

    Create trade routes and get players working together to grow food and win wars.

    New systems for spawns; weather and hundreds of mini events that the server can start on its' own or add random triggers to begin certain events. Like, snakes of all types invading a city or maybe just thousands of rats without the storyline, it's just unecessary time. These would be side events that don't need an explanation.

    If you moved to this shard, you're given more character slots, 10 and 1 added for every new race. Larger custom homes. Preset structures and rules like a minimum cost, more storage, more taming slots, more of everything.

    People will leave their shards and slowly move to a shard like this because of the incentives and possibly new players would begin playing on this shard because it would have everything that they would want and the devs could work asking people what is it that they would like, as they create it.
  34. MalagAste

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

    Aug 21, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Currently the shard I'm on is just slowly getting lower in population but it's still got a fair populous.

    I can't see them saying ooo you have to move anytime in my future.

    However if they offered up "playstyle" oriented shards. Where they truly were focused on RP.... then I'd probably move.

    Start all over not likely. Though I might create a char just to check out how it'd be.

    But to move.... No. I think I'd quit. As it stands I am part of an RP town. Moving would be bad. There is no way I could go to a more populated shard and still keep my Castle and Keep as well as have 7 out of 8 of my homes in the same general area and all be Max storage.. with a Castle and Keep.... that's just not going to happen. Not to mention I'd hate to lose our banner. I think I'd say forget it.... and be pretty irate about it. That'd likely be the "push" that would force me to quit and start playing on some free shard.
  35. Aurelius

    Aurelius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Feb 26, 2004
    Likes Received:
    I loathe the idea of server mergers, but for the purposes of your ideas - isn't Magincia pretty much the prime candidate for this one?
  36. I proposed Trinsic simply because it's my favorite town, layout and architecture-wise, but I suppose that Magincia would be ideal to build the town with player housing from the start.

    Now that you mention it, I hope they do this with Magincia regardless of server mergers (which is probably never going to happen anyway).
  37. old gypsy

    old gypsy Grand Poobah
    Professional Stratics Veteran Campaign Patron PITMUCK

    Dec 18, 2010
    Likes Received:
    I'm having conflicting thoughts about the idea of merging servers. Lately, I've been actually missing "the old days" when you could hardly go anywhere without running into other players. I don't know what the present population is on most shards now, but I think it may be far less than some of us imagine. And the additional land masses aren't (in my opinion) the only reason you can often play for hours without seeing another soul. Even with global chat on, I get the impression that there aren't many people out there at any given point in time.

    I would probably go for it if they ever decided to merge all the servers into one, and I'd be willing to dump items and live in a small house, if necessary (although I certainly understand why many players might not like that idea at all).

    I'd rather not see Magincia turned into another Luna, though. Why not let players rent stalls there (for a reasonable price) like a festive open-air bazaar instead? That would definitely give things more of a "community" feel than what is presently found in Luna. Heck, even if they never merge servers, I like that idea regardless.