I don't think it has to be contrived. I've skim read a lot of the last few pages because it's mostly repetition, but I noticed someone mentioned natural disasters or the spreading of disease.

That's actually a fantastic idea. You could claim, I dunno, bubonic plague (or the UO equivelant) forces the 'survivors' out of Vesper which gets burned to stop infection. The Vesper based guilds could uproot without "losing face."

Or an Earthquake could collapse Trinsic, a forest fire could ravage Yew. Anything. I don't think these are necessarily 'contrived' ideas, at all.

I don't mean an actual event causing it but rather the overall concept. For example, the suggestion of a new "superguild" or several new guilds all with new alts. The last thing we need is a flood of alts. There's too many of them around at the moment, yet another part of the problem I think.

It's extremely easy to criticise the ideas of others. It's a lot more difficult to put one forward yourself. The problem certainly isn't going to be solved by some vague assertion that we should 'Get in game and create interaction with other guilds!!!11" as if no one has ever thought of that before. It's the most obvious and utterly banal suggestion one could make. As has been pointed out time and time again it doesn't happen for a reason, and even if the reason itself is an unjustified one, constantly saying that people should interact isn't going to make it happen.

I suggested that we give the single guild consisting of alts a one week trial because I think it's the only way to artificially ensure interaction and help make more of a single RP community rather than a collection of independent entities. I explicitly said that it's unrealistic because people probably won't go for it, but that if people were really serious about trying to keep UO rp alive then it's the most feasible option, and if one week is wasted on a doomed project then it's not the end of the world.

As it turns out, I was right - people aren't going for it. Or at least not enough to make it workable; it would need a large playerbase to get off the ground. If we were to set the community up now, we'd get like ten people involved, it would quickly die as a result and the nay sayers would gloat in the face of the failure. That's why i'm not going to 'get out there and do it!' - I wouldn't want to waste my time on a project which requires widespread support to work when it's not got said support.

Edit: Nevermind. ;)

Oh agreed. I think Sineal's idea would be fun on paper but he's grossly naive if he thinks it's ever going to happen on any grander scale.

Read my posts fools!

It's equally naive to think that everyone's going to up sticks and move to Yew/Vesper or that simply telling people to interact is going to make it happen.

Henry has a good point,

How could you make the guild centralised? wont it just become another City Guild?

No, there's never been a planet Janet hasn't seen.

My little contribution to the thread.

First, I have not read all the threat, then, if I say some error, please excuse me .

If we must do a RP more centralized, I think it's better to do that with 2 towns. Yew and Vesper by example...

Why ?
Yew is a more loyalist, and it's probably the bigger RP community in Europa. Here is a Abbey, where a strong religious community can take place. It's too a country town, lost in the wood, more centralized -for the citizens- to the farmer/woodworker activity.

Vesper is rebel, and it's too a big RP community in Europa. And Vesper is more urban.

Between the both ?
Cove and Minoc. These place can be taked by one of the two towns. Then, good battle can still .

There is more possible antagonism than with only one town. Also, the both town are big, enough for being divided in some land/district.

I m not especially for this solution, but I like more the idea of 2 towns/area than only one.

Good, good, see you soon !

=Edit=

Nevermind