I think Ultima Online should embrace 'Account Bound' as a whole, but ...

Yep, after seeing Hythloth as the botting disaster that it is this needs to be done:
1.) Get rid of 'Shard Bound' in favor of 'Account Bound', meaning that only the account that earned the turn in items and claimed the reward can equip them.
2.) Drastically lower the point count for the rewards. For example, 200 for the Relvinian Spellbook -> now 40 points. 100 for epaulets -> now 25 points.


Benefits!
1.) Prices won't need to be inflated because of endless illegal gameplay and could potentially be reduced across the board because they hold no 'value'. You could get all the items you want and faster! Gear up all your characters in a timely manner. Who hates more gear? 
2.) Most bots/scripts/multibox/illegal gameplay vanishes immediately.
3.) The system can be used for other aspects of the game. Most other MMOs, especially with raid-style content, have it for end-game gear for a reason! (As an aside: Ultima Online desperately needs a "Account Bound" system to encourage actual gameplay and participation in the content.)
4.) This system essentially already exists as the original 'owned by' so implementation could be as easy as copy/paste.
5.) Release ALL PREVIOUS ToT style system rewards as claimable going forward. Or activate all old dungeons and leave their specific rewards claimable.
6.) Could even well keep the content active year around.

Downsides?
1.) Hardcore grinders can't bank off of this. 
2.) Doesn't completely get rid of bots/scripts/multibox/illegal gameplay but I'd guess after the first few days most of these people will be done after they've gotten what they 'want'.
3.) Decoration and non-equippable items can't be 'Account Bound' as it currently stands (With the original 'owned by' system).

"... but @username, I hate when Devs implement things that 'hurt' botters but end up affecting legit players also"
I believe the benefits I can come up with HEAVILY outweigh the downsides without affecting legitimate players. In fact, this could benefit legitimate players a ton.

Any other benefits/downsides that I can't think of?

@Mesanna should hire @username

UO and Diablo do not copy each other. Diablo has only allowed limited trade for years.

And no thanks.  Again why cant a shard as crowded as Atlantic find 4 players that would stand wherever they are and kill the stuff. Deal with your problems.  I sit 2 guys at the entry gates to kill paragons for the shard. They get 1 drop a night.  Players on Atl could camp their spot if this bothers more than 3 players.
2 players doing random Thunderstorms would kill the spawn where they are.

If you can't get three players to help you stop them then it seems you are the only one affected by this.

If your shard can not cooperate in such a small way, I feel sorry for you.

Pawain said:

UO and Diablo do not copy each other. Diablo has only allowed limited trade for years.

And no thanks.  Again why cant a shard as crowded as Atlantic find 4 players that would stand wherever they are and kill the stuff. Deal with your problems.  I sit 2 guys at the entry gates to kill paragons for the shard. They get 1 drop a night.  Players on Atl could camp their spot if this bothers more than 3 players.

If you can't get three players to help you stop them then it seems you are the only one affected by this.

If your shard can not cooperate in such a small way, I feel sorry for you.

ur funny

You are also. Maybe you should play the offline version of UO. 

Pawain said:

You are also. Maybe you should play the offline version of UO. 

keep to f5'ing the forum trolling. its a good look, dumbass

username said:

Pawain said:

You are also. Maybe you should play the offline version of UO. 

keep to f5'ing the forum trolling. its a good look, dumbass

Im serious.  You cant find three people that are concerned enough about this on Atlantic that would go cast Thunderstorms constantly to make them leave.

Also you will find out that that spot has such a small amount of spawn the drop rate/hour is not great there.

Pawain said:

username said:

Pawain said:

You are also. Maybe you should play the offline version of UO. 

keep to f5'ing the forum trolling. its a good look, dumbass

Im serious.  You cant find three people that are concerned enough about this on Atlantic that would go cast Thunderstorms constantly to make them leave.

Also you will find out that that spot has such a small amount of spawn the drop rate/hour is not great there.

Right now. Go to atlantic, first floor hythloth, 'Dead on Dave' and 'Kandaria'. You tell me how to deal with them. Also, why is it my responsibility to deal with them again?

A prior thread that discussed suggested changes, unfortunately, got locked:
https://forum.uo.com/discussion/9542/suggestions-for-future-treasures-of

Adding to that thread, I'd say EJ accounts should not be getting drops.  Start with a few small changes.   That one seems like it could be a 1 line code change?

"Account bound" does have some merit, but I'd hesitate to say that should be applied to all drops.  As it stands now, players can get the dungeon participation drops, and sell those, thereby getting into the current economy regardless of how established they are.  That beats the "kill 1000 balrons" to make 1,500,000 gold approach.

"Account bound" may be more appropriate at the time rewards are claimed at the trader.  I'd actually prefer that to shard bound, as I don't sell those claimed items.

Would agree with lowering the price of rewards.  Playing two or three hours a night gets me maybe 2 to 5 drops per hour depending on who and what is in the dungeon.  Maybe everyone else does a lot better than that I don’t know.  Really enjoyed ice and serpents hold a lot more.  My drop rate was about the same but those dungeons were just more fun to play.  Really getting tired of constantly having to constantly deal with oversized paragons.  Just don’t see that Spellbook justifying the effort it would take to get it.
Personally, think equipment that a player uses every day should not be shard bound but agree with shard bound limitation on items placed on vendors,  Should be way for a player to agree not to sell those items intended for personal use so the shard bound limitation could be removed.

ForeverFun said:

A prior thread that discussed suggested changes, unfortunately, got locked:
https://forum.uo.com/discussion/9542/suggestions-for-future-treasures-of

Adding to that thread, I'd say EJ accounts should not be getting drops.  Start with a few small changes.   That one seems like it could be a 1 line code change?

"Account bound" does have some merit, but I'd hesitate to say that should be applied to all drops.  As it stands now, players can get the dungeon participation drops, and sell those, thereby getting into the current economy regardless of how established they are.  That beats the "kill 1000 balrons" to make 1,500,000 gold approach.

"Account bound" may be more appropriate at the time rewards are claimed at the trader.  I'd actually prefer that to shard bound, as I don't sell those claimed items.

Seems like it was locked due to trolling. 

The beauty of "Account Bound" solution is that it covers EJ accounts not getting drops because... then who cares? Actually, having EJs able to accrue items like this may encourage more to sub up. Think about it... if you spent a ton of time on a character that's free to play to get a ton of gear you have a meaningful character. Contrast it to how it is today if you have an EJ everything is available and you have nothing you need to actually play to game to earn.

I'm torn on this however because ToT is the only 'content' we've gotten/will get it seems and discluding them from it is a big kick in the teeth.... but then again, I'd guess 99% of EJs are used for illegal means lol.

Yes that is the big problem with Account Bound as I outlined is that the hardcore players or legit players looking to make some gold aren't able to sell. But I think this is highly offset, especially with my suggestions, of being able to do these year around and gear up to do other content in the game more efficiently. So... although you aren't directly making gold off of an all Account Bound system, the gear you earn could make you more effectively do like Shadowguard or Blackthorns dungeon, so sell that stuff instead.

Account Bound for the trader rewards and not the drops I don't think would change much vs how it is currently: the bots would just sell the point items. Having both Account Bound means they can reduce the points because inherently the items will have no resale value, don't have to be shard bound and you can gear up more characters. Seems like a win-win-win to me going all Account Bound.

Lots of players like to get these rewards to sell when they want gold.

So 2 players are ruining the dungeon for the whole shard? No one else on Atlantic is getting drops?

This is BS.

Ridiculous idea

i run 3 accounts and your idea punishes me for  NO reason

as is always the case, the way to deal with cheaters, scripters, illegal program users, bots and multiboxers is deal with cheaters, scripters, illegal program users, bot and mulitboxers. Not everyone in a blanket nerf

so much of this game has been destroyed this way, yet the cheats quickly work around all pathetic lazy fixes

Interesting thought, however I've used my most able character to get items for a less able character on another account. I could live with 'shard bound' artifact drops and 'account bound' rewards. 
@JackFlashUk If you're so sure there's a nice easy 'fix' to prevent these cheats, please inform the team, because I emphatically disagree with your assumption that they are 'lazy'.

Petra_Fyde said:

Interesting thought, however I've used my most able character to get items for a less able character on another account. I could live with 'shard bound' artifact drops and 'account bound' rewards. 
@ JackFlashUk If you're so sure there's a nice easy 'fix' to prevent these cheats, please inform the team, because I emphatically disagree with your assumption that they are 'lazy'.

How about, a "self-shut" mechanism which could auto-close the Ultima Online Client if something else besides it is detected to be running that is not specifically authorized ?

Want to play Ultima Online ?

Just fire it up along with an authorized other program.

Any other, not specifically authorized to run along with Ultima Online, would tell the client to self-shut down.

popps said:

Petra_Fyde said:

Interesting thought, however I've used my most able character to get items for a less able character on another account. I could live with 'shard bound' artifact drops and 'account bound' rewards. 
@ JackFlashUk If you're so sure there's a nice easy 'fix' to prevent these cheats, please inform the team, because I emphatically disagree with your assumption that they are 'lazy'.

How about, a "self-shut" mechanism which could auto-close the Ultima Online Client if something else besides it is detected to be running that is not specifically authorized ?

Want to play Ultima Online ?

Just fire it up along with an authorized other program.

Any other, not specifically authorized to run along with Ultima Online, would tell the client to self-shut down.

Oh you mean a program like PunkBuster that you had to allow access to your computer, which by the way was last used on a game in 2015, and had lots of false hits that took acts of GOD to get them to lift a ban.  Even the non cheaters refused to allow a program unrestrained access to our computers but you go right ahead and give a program to snoop your system and collect whatever data it wants to.  The only way to do this is to have UO figure a way server side to detect and enforce cheating.  here is the problem that a lot of us have come to that sometimes you have to let the Devil do what he does in order to allow us to play the game we love.  How many accounts would UO lose if in fact all cheaters were banned and that includes the people that train AFK on a pet in Luna or the spell casters in a safe spot training a magic skill by holding a key to repeat a spell over and over.  Could UO afford to lose that many accounts and still survive the chopping block, sadly I think the answer is NO and EA/BS/UO all know it so a blind eye is turned to all but the most vile of cheaters (multiboxers).  If UO banned all of these, which IMHO they created by allowing EJ Accounts to much access) I could live with the rest in order to keep UO running.
An AFK/Hidden Tamer is easily dealt with by killing all the spawn before his pet auto kills anything.  You are much faster at engaging a MOB than the Auto Attack System on pets, when a MOB spawns there is a delay before a pet attacks so you can engage and kill them even befor3 a pet can so what is the problem with stealing kills from a cheater, none.

The only way to fix it at this stage is for UO to sell everything in the store cheaper than the RMT sites do......and i mean everything...and i mean cheaper..conspiracy folks are going to want to suggest that people in power are already making money but that is really irrelevant whoever is running the RMT business needs to be undercut..

I vote no for account bound. I buy the items to use for deco or to turn in and get stuff. I dont want to fight, i hate fighting, but i do like shopping. 

Just kill the spawn before the AFK Tamer's pet auto attacks, problem solved.

"Linked account bound" would sure be a lot better than shard bound, from a usability perspective.  Linked account at the time of claiming at the arty trader.

@popps

There appears to be plenty of material on wikipedia, and discoverable via google on anti-cheating/etc.  I'd imagine it would take a team the size of the UO team to implement and maintain some of this.  Then they wouldn't have time to work on the game itself.  This comes up fairly regularly, so maybe @Mariah can create a sticky/wiki entry on it?

Soldahouse said:

I vote no for account bound. I buy the items to use for deco or to turn in and get stuff. I dont want to fight, i hate fighting, but i do like shopping. 

I agree "no on account bound" and I'm the exact opposite of you; I love killing all the baddies to get the stuff I want and rarely buy the event stuff (unless I'm short on time or didn't grab enough of something during the event). I see where you are coming from though as there are some things I just don't feel like being bothered with and I'd much rather just pay the cost for someone else to do the work for me.

keven2002 said:

Soldahouse said:

I vote no for account bound. I buy the items to use for deco or to turn in and get stuff. I dont want to fight, i hate fighting, but i do like shopping. 

I agree "no on account bound" and I'm the exact opposite of you; I love killing all the baddies to get the stuff I want and rarely buy the event stuff (unless I'm short on time or didn't grab enough of something during the event). I see where you are coming from though as there are some things I just don't feel like being bothered with and I'd much rather just pay the cost for someone else to do the work for me.

Would account bound once equipped by you be better that way things can still be bought and sold 

I disagree with an account bound perspective on this.  

Account bound will destroy the event itself. 

Look at the event champ spawn for which the reward only drops once. After everyone has got it, no one will participate it anymore. Same will happen if rewards are account bound. 

What's the real issue? EA can't make a fortune by selling glorify fortune potions anymore

username said:

I think Ultima Online should embrace 'Account Bound' as a whole, but ...

Yep, after seeing Hythloth as the botting disaster that it is this needs to be done:
1.) Get rid of 'Shard Bound' in favor of 'Account Bound', meaning that only the account that earned the turn in items and claimed the reward can equip them.
2.) Drastically lower the point count for the rewards. For example, 200 for the Relvinian Spellbook -> now 40 points. 100 for epaulets -> now 25 points.


Benefits!
1.) Prices won't need to be inflated because of endless illegal gameplay and could potentially be reduced across the board because they hold no 'value'. You could get all the items you want and faster! Gear up all your characters in a timely manner. Who hates more gear? 
2.) Most bots/scripts/multibox/illegal gameplay vanishes immediately.
3.) The system can be used for other aspects of the game. Most other MMOs, especially with raid-style content, have it for end-game gear for a reason! (As an aside: Ultima Online desperately needs a "Account Bound" system to encourage actual gameplay and participation in the content.)
4.) This system essentially already exists as the original 'owned by' so implementation could be as easy as copy/paste.
5.) Release ALL PREVIOUS ToT style system rewards as claimable going forward. Or activate all old dungeons and leave their specific rewards claimable.
6.) Could even well keep the content active year around.

Downsides?
1.) Hardcore grinders can't bank off of this. 
2.) Doesn't completely get rid of bots/scripts/multibox/illegal gameplay but I'd guess after the first few days most of these people will be done after they've gotten what they 'want'.
3.) Decoration and non-equippable items can't be 'Account Bound' as it currently stands (With the original 'owned by' system).

"... but @ username, I hate when Devs implement things that 'hurt' botters but end up affecting legit players also"
I believe the benefits I can come up with HEAVILY outweigh the downsides without affecting legitimate players. In fact, this could benefit legitimate players a ton.

Any other benefits/downsides that I can't think of?

Idiots created shard bound items.
Then came the Super morons that asked for account bound.

The only genius are those who left us a great game that we have been playing for 20 over years.

I missed the old days.

Since i dont think shard bound property is going away, it would be nice to have a conversion from shard bound to account bound, that way i dont have to farm over and over for the same item on all shards i have chars. Its ridiculous now to make a separate suit for the same character on each shard

Keep shard bound until equipped then account bound that way you damn off sharders cant come to my empty shard trample my lawn then leave but still allows  shard commerce..

Draike said:

Since i dont think shard bound property is going away, it would be nice to have a conversion from shard bound to account bound, that way i dont have to farm over and over for the same item on all shards i have chars. Its ridiculous now to make a separate suit for the same character on each shard

Well, how about, instead of having to farm for same shard bound items on multiple shards, if, on some shards one was to lack a Template that was effective to farm for those items, that they farm for Shard Bound items on the whatever Shard(s) they have more effective Templates to farm for them, SELL the extra Shard Bound items on that/those Shards which they have it easier to farm them, thus helping the economy of their "main" Shard(s), and THEN, with the UO gold obtained, transfer the gold to whatever Shard they need those Shard Bound items on, and BUY them there, thus helping the economy of those Shards ?

Shard Bound items, to my opinion, are a blessing come true to help the economies of all Shards other then Atlantic....

Sell on a Shard, transfer the gold, and buy on another Shard.

Account Bound, instead, would KILL the economy because all of these items, would not be sellable, not even on a Shard basis.

I am all OK with Shard Bound, NOT with Account Bound.

popps said:

Draike said:

Since i dont think shard bound property is going away, it would be nice to have a conversion from shard bound to account bound, that way i dont have to farm over and over for the same item on all shards i have chars. Its ridiculous now to make a separate suit for the same character on each shard

Well, how about, instead of having to farm for same shard bound items on multiple shards, if, on some shards one was to lack a Template that was effective to farm for those items, that they farm for Shard Bound items on the whatever Shard(s) they have more effective Templates to farm for them, SELL the extra Shard Bound items on that/those Shards which they have it easier to farm them, thus helping the economy of their "main" Shard(s), and THEN, with the UO gold obtained, transfer the gold to whatever Shard they need those Shard Bound items on, and BUY them there, thus helping the economy of those Shards ?

Shard Bound items, to my opinion, are a blessing come true to help the economies of all Shards other then Atlantic....

Sell on a Shard, transfer the gold, and buy on another Shard.

Account Bound, instead, would KILL the economy because all of these items, would not be sellable, not even on a Shard basis.

I am all OK with Shard Bound, NOT with Account Bound.

You are assuming they cost the same price on both shards. And there is only one shard that is more populated than the rest by many times.

We don't really know all the motivations for introducing "shard bound" on these items.  For instance, could a reason for doing this relate to trying to drive up active user time across the UO service, across shards, active user account numbers, etc?

It's also a guess that the "abuse" around botting/etc largely originates from EJ accounts.  That's a reasonable guess to make, as there could be less risk associated with those accounts getting banned/etc.  It remains strange that EJ accounts can receive the participation drops.  Again, there could be other reasons for letting this be.

@popps, I disagree the economy would be destroyed. You are still free to sell all the dungeon participation drops.  If you take the example of the SDI50 book, for 200 drops, you are much better off just selling 200 drops and buying a non-shard bound variant of the book, and you'll have gold leftover.  I image most casual players don't sell the claimed artifacts.

Eliminating shard bound altogether would be fine too, though curbing possible EJ account abuse, if that's the a root issue, seems like a pre-req.  Again, there may be other factors at play that prevent such moves.

ForeverFun said:

We don't really know all the motivations for introducing "shard bound" on these items.  For instance, could a reason for doing this relate to trying to drive up active user time across the UO service, across shards, active user account numbers, etc?

It's also a guess that the "abuse" around botting/etc largely originates from EJ accounts.  That's a reasonable guess to make, as there could be less risk associated with those accounts getting banned/etc.  It remains strange that EJ accounts can receive the participation drops.  Again, there could be other reasons for letting this be.

@ popps, I disagree the economy would be destroyed. You are still free to sell all the dungeon participation drops.  If you take the example of the SDI50 book, for 200 drops, you are much better off just selling 200 drops and buying a non-shard bound variant of the book, and you'll have gold leftover.  I image most casual players don't sell the claimed artifacts.

Eliminating shard bound altogether would be fine too, though curbing possible EJ account abuse, if that's the a root issue, seems like a pre-req.  Again, there may be other factors at play that prevent such moves.

I disagree the economy would be destroyed. You are still free to sell all the dungeon participation drops.  If you take the example of the SDI50 book, for 200 drops, you are much better off just selling 200 drops and buying a non-shard bound variant of the book, and you'll have gold leftover.  I image most casual players don't sell the claimed artifacts.

With the small but quite meaningfull detail, though, that while Shard Bound items can be sold indefinitely, today, in 6 months, in 1 Year and more, the sale of the drops would only be meaningfull during the short and imited time frame of the Event...

Gone the Event, gone the guy at the Dungeon entrance, gone is the ability to sell the drops...

Sorry but no, I much prefer Shard Bound to Account Bound, and stay of my opinion that Account Bound would be detrimental to a Shard's economy.

popps said:

ForeverFun said:

We don't really know all the motivations for introducing "shard bound" on these items.  For instance, could a reason for doing this relate to trying to drive up active user time across the UO service, across shards, active user account numbers, etc?

It's also a guess that the "abuse" around botting/etc largely originates from EJ accounts.  That's a reasonable guess to make, as there could be less risk associated with those accounts getting banned/etc.  It remains strange that EJ accounts can receive the participation drops.  Again, there could be other reasons for letting this be.

@ popps, I disagree the economy would be destroyed. You are still free to sell all the dungeon participation drops.  If you take the example of the SDI50 book, for 200 drops, you are much better off just selling 200 drops and buying a non-shard bound variant of the book, and you'll have gold leftover.  I image most casual players don't sell the claimed artifacts.

Eliminating shard bound altogether would be fine too, though curbing possible EJ account abuse, if that's the a root issue, seems like a pre-req.  Again, there may be other factors at play that prevent such moves.

I disagree the economy would be destroyed. You are still free to sell all the dungeon participation drops.  If you take the example of the SDI50 book, for 200 drops, you are much better off just selling 200 drops and buying a non-shard bound variant of the book, and you'll have gold leftover.  I image most casual players don't sell the claimed artifacts.

With the small but quite meaningfull detail, though, that while Shard Bound items can be sold indefinitely, today, in 6 months, in 1 Year and more, the sale of the drops would only be meaningfull during the short and imited time frame of the Event...

Gone the Event, gone the guy at the Dungeon entrance, gone is the ability to sell the drops...

Sorry but no, I much prefer Shard Bound to Account Bound, and stay of my opinion that Account Bound would be detrimental to a Shard's economy.

There's an old saying - you snooze, you lose.  That aside, I still believe most casual players simply don't sell the claimed drops.  The "professional" players / resellers are hopefully the minority.

On the other hand, I've been a repeated proponent of bringing events like this back, on a periodic basis, e.g. a random "past event" one weekend a month.

If it were permanent content maybe, but best in slot items available for limited time periods of play, even once a year is moronic already. Adding in Account bound on top of that just further limits it from the hands of new and returning players. 

King_Greg said:

If it were permanent content maybe, but best in slot items available for limited time periods of play, even once a year is moronic already. Adding in Account bound on top of that just further limits it from the hands of new and returning players. 

@King_Greg ;

Out of curiosity, is there a list somewhere of what items are considered as "best in slot", of course, depending on what Template one is talking about ?

STOP with the shard bound BS.  Atl may suck but we are at least able to get stuff for our less populated shards there.  Not everybody has the ability to farm 24/7 to get what they want.

I never see these botters/scripters people always talking about. I hear about it so often, but I sure don't ever see it. Plus even if you can write your own scripts, making one that can farm for you in hythloth right now seems pretty fukking complicated.
So I'm for sure not at all ok with this idea lol. No way in hell would I want account-bound items to stop the literally 0 instances of botting I run across.
BTW this is gonna sound crazy, but you can always lure paragons to them. If their bots are good enough to handle paragon balrons, then someone needs to hire those dudes because that's some damn good AI. 

Balin_Wingnut said:

I never see these botters/scripters people always talking about. I hear about it so often, but I sure don't ever see it. Plus even if you can write your own scripts, making one that can farm for you in hythloth right now seems pretty fukking complicated.
So I'm for sure not at all ok with this idea lol. No way in hell would I want account-bound items to stop the literally 0 instances of botting I run across.
BTW this is gonna sound crazy, but you can always lure paragons to them. If their bots are good enough to handle paragon balrons, then someone needs to hire those dudes because that's some damn good AI. 

Balin_Wingnut said:

I never see these botters/scripters people always talking about. I hear about it so often, but I sure don't ever see it. Plus even if you can write your own scripts, making one that can farm for you in hythloth right now seems pretty fukking complicated.
So I'm for sure not at all ok with this idea lol. No way in hell would I want account-bound items to stop the literally 0 instances of botting I run across.
BTW this is gonna sound crazy, but you can always lure paragons to them. If their bots are good enough to handle paragon balrons, then someone needs to hire those dudes because that's some damn good AI. 

Just because your 0% understanding of whatever they are doing or can't do it yourself doesn't make it 'complicated'. I don't know how to set up a tent but I am sure it's not complicated. You have no idea what foundation or program they use so that's an extremely ignorant thing to say. The ones on Atlantic that run around 23/7 seem 'chicken' when they get below a certain hp threshold and run outside.

Seems a lot of people are in agreement to ditch shard bound in favor of account bound, among with several of the improvements I have listed. Hopefully we see this next round!

I see few players that would rather have account bound.  I see only Popps that wants shard bound.

Everyone I see on LS wants neither.

Pawain said:

I see few players that would rather have account bound.  I see only Popps that wants shard bound.

Everyone I see on LS wants neither.

Can we get a BIG AMEN

Pawain said:

I see few players that would rather have account bound.  I see only Popps that wants shard bound.

Everyone I see on LS wants neither.

Yes, same with me. They don't solve any major issues but create more problem. It won't make things cheaper. It won't help returning players. It does not make the game better.