Time to clean house: archive dead shards

This may be controversial, but I think certain shards should just be closed/archived. Offer free transfers away from these shards. Creation of new chars should be blocked on these shards. For accounts that don't even have a char on them, they shouldn't show in the list anymore. 

An example is Drachenfels. It's just deader than dead and it's a shame if even 10 players get on there instead of say, Europa. They'll waste resources and time on a shard that has a population so low you really miss out on a ton of UO experience. I even think they can't get a proper feel of the game on such a shard. Vendors are missing 90% of stuff you will find on an active shard. There are no people to normally group with. (So few, you can hardly call it a proper mmorpg experience), etc.

I've been traveling shards during this first period of EJ and some have plenty of new players and returnees coming in, some are just dead. Some of these people also don't realize that not all shards are like this. I spoke to already two people who almost left because they thought the game was dead. Turns out they just went to a shard that is dead.

It's not good for UO or new players/returnees to keep these shards in list. I vote for archiving roughly in the manner I described in my first paragraph. Free transfers out. No more new char creation. Time to clean house.

It's not as simple as that though.
What about players houses there? All their stuff that they can't fit in their bank to transfer? What if they already have characters on other shards, which ones do they get to keep?
That's just for starters. It's easy to say, let's close these shards when it isn't one that you play. And no, I don't play Drach.

I voted Maybe, because the real problem, IMO, as always is the case with this topic, are Houses. Chars can be "moved" to other Shards, sure, but if the spot in which a player has its house in DRK is already taken in EUR or on some other Shard? Who decide who get it?

I've previously came up with this idea that you get a vendor-search-like recall to your house on your old shard. So you can keep your house there for as long as you like, but the shard is archived. The char transfer in terms of having chars on other shards already - well, find shards you don't have chars on, delete them, or offer extra slots for these people.. whatever is feasible and reasonable.

There is already a means to transfer to another shard.  In my opinion, it would be stupid to force players to transfer now.  I would quit if they forced me to transfer from Pacific.

InLor said:

I've previously came up with this idea that you get a vendor-search-like recall to your house on your old shard. So you can keep your house there for as long as you like, but the shard is archived. The char transfer in terms of having chars on other shards already - well, find shards you don't have chars on, delete them, or offer extra slots for these people.. whatever is feasible and reasonable.

In this case, if the shard is "archived" (it means keep your house as is and be able to recall to it at any time -is this what you meant ? then these players should be able to get another house on the new shard ?? (while keeping the old one) or they could choose to stop playing UO at all but the old house on the archived shard would stay there forever for free ?? Also, what if they haven't finished their deco on the "archived" shard ? will they be able to continue ??? Lots of questions !! Because, after all, the players on the dead shard have put as much efforts as others in the other shards so beware not to be totally unfair !! Would that even be legal ?? (as per TOS) And, last but not least, how much money is this going to get you in your pocket ?

I explained myself badly: I meant that, IMO, Chars transfer is NOT a big problem (as a last resort it could be raised the number of slots of the "migrating" players in the "recieving" Shard as a form of compensation), but that the Houses are. The Vendor search-alike engine for houses is surely feasible, but I am non so sure that it will be really cheaper to mantain that to simply keep the Shard servers going. Anyway, I agree with the abstract general idea of "Shard pruning"...

i think what InLor is getting at is to leave the shard online and fully functional with everything intact for all current residents, but to block creation of new characters there. This would prevent returning or new players from accidentally trying to get started on a near-empty shard, while still allowing those who enjoy the shard in its current state to stay there.  For those who would like to move, allow free one-time transfers off-shard.  Something would have to be done regarding housing and transferring contents though.

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

Margrette said:

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

I like that! 🙂

Ivenor said:

Margrette said:

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

I like that! 🙂

Yes !

North_LS said:

i think what InLor is getting at is to leave the shard online and fully functional with everything intact for all current residents, but to block creation of new characters there. This would prevent returning or new players from accidentally trying to get started on a near-empty shard, while still allowing those who enjoy the shard in its current state to stay there.  For those who would like to move, allow free one-time transfers off-shard.  Something would have to be done regarding housing and transferring contents though.

Yep, quite right!

Margrette said:

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

Sorry, I don't think it's feasible to resurrect some of these shards and with the limited resources the team ahs I think we need to simplify and fonsolidate. Incentives to move away from dead shards, not to them...

Meggie said:

InLor said:

I've previously came up with this idea that you get a vendor-search-like recall to your house on your old shard. So you can keep your house there for as long as you like, but the shard is archived. The char transfer in terms of having chars on other shards already - well, find shards you don't have chars on, delete them, or offer extra slots for these people.. whatever is feasible and reasonable.

In this case, if the shard is "archived" (it means keep your house as is and be able to recall to it at any time -is this what you meant ? then these players should be able to get another house on the new shard ?? (while keeping the old one) or they could choose to stop playing UO at all but the old house on the archived shard would stay there forever for free ?? Also, what if they haven't finished their deco on the "archived" shard ? will they be able to continue ??? Lots of questions !! Because, after all, the players on the dead shard have put as much efforts as others in the other shards so beware not to be totally unfair !! Would that even be legal ?? (as per TOS) And, last but not least, how much money is this going to get you in your pocket ?

My pocket? Huh? As for legality: of course it is legal. Servers are closed and merged in MMORPGs all the time.

And for some shards we are really talking about a very small amount of players. Shards can be archived indefinitely even, but just close them for newcomers and incentives moving away by making it free. Perhaps a house copy feature is feasible... where the players from dead shards can move their house to new housing lands on other shards made available especially for them. Earlier I came up with these floating islands in Malas for that. Could be cool.

InLor said:

Margrette said:

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

Sorry, I don't think it's feasible to resurrect some of these shards and with the limited resources the team ahs I think we need to simplify and fonsolidate. Incentives to move away from dead shards, not to them..

I think the work to close shards and try to placate the people who were affected by the closures would be much more extensive than coming up with ways to entice more people to play on quieter shards. Closing shards would likely drive away a number of players; encouraging people to spread out again might just bring some old players back.

Well, there are several ways to go about it. Disallow new chars. Give the remainder of people super-charged shard shields of choice or something like that. This would not be a lot of work. My intuition is that UO can have a second renaissance and grow, but it shouldn't cripple that by allowing people to spread to thinly.

This again.  What do you consider a small amount of players?  How many lost subs do you consider ok.  Why do you insists that in order for UO to work we have to play it your way.  UO has survived for 20 years the way it is and it will survive just fine as is.  I just ran around Drach Luna and I counted 41 paid accounts, how many Castles are there on Drach?  I think someone said that there was +50 castles per shard (tram and fel) so that is 100 accounts.  How many dead shards do you think there are and which shard are you going to force people to play, what Atl, I am sure all the WEST Coast players will love that.  

Bilbo said:

This again.  What do you consider a small amount of players?  How many lost subs do you consider ok.  Why do you insists that in order for UO to work we have to play it your way.  UO has survived for 20 years the way it is and it will survive just fine as is.  I just ran around Drach Luna and I counted 41 paid accounts, how many Castles are there on Drach?  I think someone said that there was +50 castles per shard (tram and fel) so that is 100 accounts.  How many dead shards do you think there are and which shard are you going to force people to play, what Atl, I am sure all the WEST Coast players will love that.  

This

Here is another problem with your idea.  I have 7 chars per shard, what do you suggest I do with them, delete them?

@InLor, you said in your first post you've been traveling shards. Which shards would you like to see closed?

I liked what someone suggested in another thread to make "islands" where they could transfer their homes to. It would prob end up looking like ice isle with castles and keeps everywhere...

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

Syncros said:

I liked what someone suggested in another thread to make "islands" where they could transfer their homes to. It would prob end up looking like ice isle with castles and keeps everywhere...

I suggested that, yeah.. hehe

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I agree, Larisa.   I think of the Korean players I've met on some of those "dead" shards and I do not get the impression that they would have any interest in playing on another shard.  They would be gone as customers and that would really be a shame.

I am on the west coast, no problem playing Atlantic in exchange for a higher populated shard base

crunchnasty said:

I am on the west coast, no problem playing Atlantic in exchange for a higher populated shard base

I play Atlantic from Europe and I'm fine.

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I think a few are a lost cause and it's better to archive them and incentivize transferring out. Solutions for housing/amount of chars can be thought of. 

I agree with Larisa on this. Merges or closures are not a good idea without having instanced housing. We saw during the artisan festival that some of the so-called 'dead' shards actually did really well, because they have a great, tight-knit community.

Bilbo said:

This again.  What do you consider a small amount of players?  How many lost subs do you consider ok.  Why do you insists that in order for UO to work we have to play it your way.  UO has survived for 20 years the way it is and it will survive just fine as is.  I just ran around Drach Luna and I counted 41 paid accounts, how many Castles are there on Drach?  I think someone said that there was +50 castles per shard (tram and fel) so that is 100 accounts.  How many dead shards do you think there are and which shard are you going to force people to play, what Atl, I am sure all the WEST Coast players will love that.  

They can copy their house to special Malas Islands. Or stay on their archived dead shard. No one talked about forcing anyone to transfer to a specific shard. Though I play Atlantic from Europe with a DSL connection and it's fine. 

Drachenfels is deader than dead. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. Vendor search shows a handful of vendors only.. It's an old shard of mine so I checked there often. On peak hours there are a few people only.. probably can count them on two hands. Zero people at Luna bank on Friday evening. And I saw a new player in Haven and told them to go Europa since Drach is dead. They thanked me for it. It's not fair to new players to have coax them into playing virtually abandoned shards. 

A method would be to have people with chars on such shards still login to that shard, but they appear at their new house which is a floating Malas island on a new shard of their choosing. that would instantly solve housing/chars problem. 

jaytin said:

I agree with Larisa on this. Merges or closures are not a good idea without having instanced housing. We saw during the artisan festival that some of the so-called 'dead' shards actually did really well, because they have a great, tight-knit community.

Right, hence my suggestion of creating these floating islands where the houses are copied to. 

And people with chars on many dead servers logging on for some events doesn't really mean the shard is viable and good to keep around for new players to go into and find out there is virtually nothing there.

So accounts of these shards would be copied onto islands on the new shard of choosing here. It would look quite cool. 

InLor said:

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I think a few are a lost cause and it's better to archive them and incentivize transferring out. Solutions for housing/amount of chars can be thought of. 

A "lost cause"?? Wow. Such arrogance.

Margrette said:

InLor said:

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I think a few are a lost cause and it's better to archive them and incentivize transferring out. Solutions for housing/amount of chars can be thought of. 

A "lost cause"?? Wow. Such arrogance.

 😂  😂  I believe he is ready to apply for being next UO Procucer  Mesanna will appreciate 

Nothing to do with arrogance. People's nostalgia is blinding them to certain moves that are normal moves in an mmorpg's evolution. When a shard is a total ghost town during peak hours and has been for a long time, it's time to think about it.

I think for the most part players have taken it upon themselves to consolidate the shards. That's why Atlantic has fairly healthy population. If you want to play uo as it was intended with many other players Atlantic is your best option. I moved there a couple years ago along a few friends from gl and run into quite a few people from gl as well. Atlantic certainly has its problems but is by far the best option to play with other players.  I was to sentimental for the longest time about gl but after moving I never regretted it.

InLor said:

Nothing to do with arrogance. People's nostalgia is blinding them to certain moves that are normal moves in an mmorpg's evolution. When a shard is a total ghost town during peak hours and has been for a long time, it's time to think about it.

So lose the paying subscriptions of that shard for what?  This suggestion basically pisses away revenue.  Stupid stupid stupid.

Dukarlo said:

I think for the most part players have taken it upon themselves to consolidate the shards. That's why Atlantic has fairly healthy population. If you want to play uo as it was intended with many other players Atlantic is your best option. I moved there a couple years ago along a few friends from gl and run into quite a few people from gl as well. Atlantic certainly has its problems but is by far the best option to play with other players.  I was to sentimental for the longest time about gl but after moving I never regretted it.

Yep. This.

What people also don't get that it really hurts retention when someone spends a week on a dead shard and eventually gets frustrated because there is virtually no community. Magincia bazar is empty, places are empty, no competition, no guilds, no guilds, etc. This is not what the game is designed around.

Some of these servers have like 12 people max playing and 30 from Atlantic for an EM event... but day to day active players are unacceptably few. 

Overall UO has too many loose ends and spread too thin. Too many empty shards, two clients, etc. This is really unfortunate.

I would start by doing something simple: no new char creation on these shards from now on and free transfers out. Second phase could be rollout of house copy for those who have houses there they care about.

Sable said:9

InLor said:

Nothing to do with arrogance. People's nostalgia is blinding them to certain moves that are normal moves in an mmorpg's evolution. When a shard is a total ghost town during peak hours and has been for a long time, it's time to think about it.

So lose the paying subscriptions of that shard for what?  This suggestion basically pisses away revenue.  Stupid stupid stupid.

It actually boosts revenue when a game goes f2p and people have clearer, fewer choices of properly populated shards that promote player retention. You are not seeing the big picture.

And no one said they are lost subscriptions. I have suggested things like house copy to islands in Malas on other shards, shard to shard coupling where you log in to shard x logs you in to shard y from now on. Your house remains available in purgatory for as long as you like until you pick an island spot on a new shard. 

As for the numbers.. the team can crunch them. But several shards are clearly total ghost towns.

waste of time even talking about this again. nay

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

An archived shard could still stay open to be visited for its history. 🙂

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

It would be nice if the dev team would let us know if this is even under consideration.

InLor said:

So accounts of these shards would be copied onto islands on the new shard of choosing here. It would look quite cool. 

I would hate playing with my house stuck in all that blackness.  It's depressing.

This whole subject is depressing.  I really think some people keep bringing it up time and time again because of its trolling value.

InLor said:

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

32

Some things are some things aren't. Things change. Two years ago so many players flamed me saying the CC resolutions would neeeever be updated. Here we are.

Just like UO would neeeever go f2p, right?

I love UO and its history, but seriously part of the playerbase is blinded by selfish nostalgia and some are very negative. Any suggestion (not neccessarily talking about this one) is said to be useless, deemed to never happen, etc. 

Sable said:

InLor said:

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

32

Please excuse me, but how is that even possible? What do you need so many accounts for? 

Margrette said:

This whole subject is depressing.  I really think some people keep bringing it up time and time again because of its trolling value.

I have stated my reasons for bringing it up and they have nothing to do with trolling.

InLor said:

Sable said:

InLor said:

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

32

Please excuse me, but how is that even possible? What do you need so many accounts for? 

For the houses they hold.  I won't even mention how many accounts of mine are in Endless Journeys  😂 .  I actually own most of the houses in New Magincia Pacific and I have groups of houses that comprise other roleplaying towns.  If you want, go hop on Pacific and check the houses out.  They are all connected via teleporters so you can jump through them all.

Also, based on this argument, why not limit all returning player to Atlantic?  Would that satisfy you?  Or do you believe you are on a shard that would benefit from this?  I don't think Pacific would be a shard that was eliminated, but I wouldn't stand for it and I wouldn't wish it on players on other shards either.  I want everyone to have the same hope that their returning players will come home in time and enjoy the game again and stay.  I've already seen a large number of new players and old vets returning home on Pac.

Sable said:

InLor said:

Sable said:

InLor said:

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

32

Please excuse me, but how is that even possible? What do you need so many accounts for? 

For the houses they hold.  I actually own most of the houses in New Magincia Pacific and I have groups of houses that comprise other roleplaying towns.  If you want, go hop on Pacific and check the houses out.  They are all connected via teleporters so you can jump through them all.

Okay, I may do that. 🙂

InLor said:

I have stated my reasons for bringing it up and they have nothing to do with trolling.

Do you have a list of shards you think should be "archived"??

Margrette said:

InLor said:

I have stated my reasons for bringing it up and they have nothing to do with trolling.

No, that's an assessment that needs to be made with backend data. Something only the UO team has. But it's clear from visits in peak hours a few shards are ripe for it. Drachenfels is a clear example. People should definitely free transfers out from a shard like that.

I think you bring up valid points InLor..you're reasonings are sound, you don't come off as condescending or argumentative, you bring good things to the table and I wish more people would do the same.

As a counter offer, I would like to see, on the shard selection screen, something about....hell I don't know I'm thinking as I'm typing which is never good lol but something that will MAKE people want to go to the lower populated shards...I mean...there ARE people around, just some tend to not talk in General Chat...take Siege..which people ALWAYS say is a ~dead~ shard...and it's nowhere even close to that...same with Origin...we are around! I just want to see a way to get more players onto these shards, not close them off and leave them to die.

If the only -valid- point in this idea is to prevent new player from logging in a 'dead' shard, then it's very easy to implement an advice about the shards and for example say (recommended) for some shards, after that the player does what he wants. And let live all the shards like before, because anyway it's not that that will 'save' UO

Why not just show how many players are logged into a shard when you are the shard selection screen?

InLor said:

Bilbo said:

This again.  What do you consider a small amount of players?  How many lost subs do you consider ok.  Why do you insists that in order for UO to work we have to play it your way.  UO has survived for 20 years the way it is and it will survive just fine as is.  I just ran around Drach Luna and I counted 41 paid accounts, how many Castles are there on Drach?  I think someone said that there was +50 castles per shard (tram and fel) so that is 100 accounts.  How many dead shards do you think there are and which shard are you going to force people to play, what Atl, I am sure all the WEST Coast players will love that.  

They can copy their house to special Malas Islands. Or stay on their archived dead shard. No one talked about forcing anyone to transfer to a specific shard. Though I play Atlantic from Europe with a DSL connection and it's fine. 

Drachenfels is deader than dead. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. Vendor search shows a handful of vendors only.. It's an old shard of mine so I checked there often. On peak hours there are a few people only.. probably can count them on two hands. Zero people at Luna bank on Friday evening. And I saw a new player in Haven and told them to go Europa since Drach is dead. They thanked me for it. It's not fair to new players to have coax them into playing virtually abandoned shards. 

I does not matter what you think.  I gave you numbers and all you do is say vendor search.  Give us some numbers.  There are over 100 paid accounts on Drach, I could care less how many people you saw.  Those are paid subs and have every right to play their game their way and not yours.  Quit ducking the hard questions.

How do I get from lets just say Atl because you got your way and now I want to get back to my castle on Baja, how does this xfer work?  Will it be like the shard Xfer and will you be giving us back our Vet rewards that will no longer be needed because the shards are not there any longer.  Come on now answer the hard stuff.  Pretend you are Bonnie and you have to convince the CEO of BS to go to EA with your plan.  What % of players are you willing to lose to save UO because without advertisement you will not gain any subs.

Margrette said:

Let's try something new for a suggestion and reverse the outcome:  Why not just ask existing players to branch out and make characters and build homes on some of these dead shards?  Why not give them some kind of an incentive to do so?

Hi Magrette! As a new player, I have no intention of spending time in high population shards like Atlantic. It is my preference to game in quieter shards and I like your idea to dream up ways to incentivize both new players and established vets to check out low population shards. 

Do you have any initial suggestions here?  🙂

Good for you @Grimjack not everybody wants to play on Atl.

Meggie said:

Margrette said:

InLor said:

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I think a few are a lost cause and it's better to archive them and incentivize transferring out. Solutions for housing/amount of chars can be thought of. 

A "lost cause"?? Wow. Such arrogance.

 😂  😂  I believe he is ready to apply for being next UO Procucer  Mesanna will appreciate 

What is a Procucer? A mixture of Procustes & a Producer? Hmm.. yes, this seems right to me... 😂

InLor said:

Dukarlo said:

I think for the most part players have taken it upon themselves to consolidate the shards. That's why Atlantic has fairly healthy population. If you want to play uo as it was intended with many other players Atlantic is your best option. I moved there a couple years ago along a few friends from gl and run into quite a few people from gl as well. Atlantic certainly has its problems but is by far the best option to play with other players.  I was to sentimental for the longest time about gl but after moving I never regretted it.

Yep. This.

What people also don't get that it really hurts retention when someone spends a week on a dead shard and eventually gets frustrated because there is virtually no community. Magincia bazar is empty, places are empty, no competition, no guilds, no guilds, etc. This is not what the game is designed around.

Some of these servers have like 12 people max playing and 30 from Atlantic for an EM event... but day to day active players are unacceptably few. 

Overall UO has too many loose ends and spread too thin. Too many empty shards, two clients, etc. This is really unfortunate.

I would start by doing something simple: no new char creation on these shards from now on and free transfers out. Second phase could be rollout of house copy for those who have houses there they care about.

You do understand that the people you describe are free to make chars on another shard

Meggie said:

Margrette said:

InLor said:

Larisa said:

We want to revitalize the ~dead~ shards....why close off character creation to them? We want MORE people there...how is disallowing people to create characters on these so-called dead shards helping in any way? I have seen more people come to Origin in the last few weeks.....people from Europa, Siege....THIS is what we need! Don't cripple them.

I think a few are a lost cause and it's better to archive them and incentivize transferring out. Solutions for housing/amount of chars can be thought of. 

A "lost cause"?? Wow. Such arrogance.

 😂  😂  I believe he is ready to apply for being next UO Procucer  Mesanna will appreciate 

UO is doomed, but I would really love to hear him trying to convince EA to do this and if he would be willing to put his job on the line.

InLor said:

Sable said:

InLor said:

Sable said:

It isn't just the house , it is the history.  If I'm losing location, if I am losing my town banners, if I am losing the old roleplaying haunts, I'm not playing.  You lose all my accounts.  It's the money in hand versus the maybe someone new pays as much money as me (unlikely).

How many accounts do you pay for?

32

Please excuse me, but how is that even possible? What do you need so many accounts for? 

So not are you the shard population police but now you are the account ownership police too.  What business is it of yours how many accounts a person have, what you gonna make them get rid of some of them too.

InLor said:

Margrette said:

InLor said:

I have stated my reasons for bringing it up and they have nothing to do with trolling.

No, that's an assessment that needs to be made with backend data. Something only the UO team has. But it's clear from visits in peak hours a few shards are ripe for it. Drachenfels is a clear example. People should definitely free transfers out from a shard like that.

So you are making a statement based on no facts what so ever and based on this you know what is better for UO than UO does.  And again with no facts you mention Drach, please enlighten us on who owns all the houses on Drach, but the shard is dead.

This is not a topic open to discussion. It has been said repeatedly over the years and still holds true, there are no plans to close or merge shards.