Static19

I was thinking of getting back into UO, I just started on a free shard but the lack of people kinda has me wanting something more.

I'm a PvP focused player, so i'm afraid the game still isn't for me. Does Trammel still exist? I believe the implementations of the split worlds is perhaps the worst MMORPG idea ever made, and thank God other ones have been smart enough to do seperate shards. Siege Perilous if I remember correctly has awful rules that kept a lot of people away?

So basically, wondering what UO offers pvp focused players, if the trammel split worlds exists on all shards cept SP still?

Cerwin Vega

uo still does have tramand you can only pvp in fel but if you pick the right shard their is alot of pvp going on. Tram is on all shard except SP and mugen i think... but if you talk to some pvpers im sure they could show u some nice shards with alot of action.

Static19

I don't understand why they can't just make a normal UO shard without the split worlds. There's a ton of them, it just boggles my mind. It would be so easy, and judging by all the connectUO shards there's a market for it. I was hoping with this anniversary pack, them trying to reach out again to the audience they would throw us a bone by removing one of the most unpopular parts for us, at least on one shard.

Vepl

Welcome to UO Forums and hopefully back to UO .

Actually Siege is very close to what you "say" you want. I would say try it out.

Vepl

__________________

Adam

I don't believe the splitting of the facet between fel/tram, was a bad idea

From the growth chart at mmorpgchart.com, it showed the number of active subscribers continued to climb.....until AOS came out that is
Then it went from some 250k, down to about 130k.

I DO think they need to bring out a pre AOS shard, perhaps the publish before aos hit and/or a publish 15 shard (I'd come back for that! hehe)

__________________

Static19

Well, I believe you're making an assumption that the increase in subscribers is correlated with the facet splitting. There's a ton of reasons why there could be continued increase in subscribers, such as a stronger push into the asian market, better reviews for the expansions, increased awareness of MMORPG's etc. EQ, WoW, and probably every single MMORPG after UO will do seperate rule servers over facets. If they were a popular idea, they would have been kept. Also, I believe that the # of PvP servers for WoW shows there is a market for such players.

SP had good ideas, but they messed it up. 1 character, more difficult to level, and various other reasons pushed people away. I remember when they wiped the server, and put in the rules. Every big name atlantic guild that had moved over left, and did not return.

Static19

BTW, I remember unlike EQ, UO did not show server populations. Is this still the case? I wanna have an idea what the most popular UO servers are in North America.

Adam

Maybe I am assuming, but obviously the split didn't hurt the game, as so many people claim
If it did, you'd see the same drop off after AOS came out

They don't release the number of players on each server, so it's upto the players to figure out which shard is the most popular
I know dev's have commented on that before, I believe...Great lakes/Atlantic are the biggest, followed by Europa
I could be wrong

__________________

Static19

EIther way, i'm sure some people enjoyed the trammel lands, enjoyed not being able to be attacked. That's fine. My argument would be that even those players were hurt by the facets.

What a facet does is it spreads the population of the server very very thin. It already spreads thinner with the intro of each expansion.

We play UO type games because we enjoy playing with other players. There's no benefit to spreading the population thinner. Wouldn't they prefer having a one facet shard with rules set up to how they enjoy them, instead 2 totally different mindset players sharing the same server? Like I said, every other MMORPG since has taken the approach I mentioned, no other game thought the facet idea was good and worth putting in.

I have a way less problem with putting say one area fel rules, another area tram rules, although that is less than ideal. My biggest problem is with them making identical areas, ie one britain with a ruleset, and another britain with a dif rulset on the same server. I honestly can't wrap my head around how such a bad idea was put into the game.

Vepl

Not sure how only one character makes siege worse. I have heard it both ways with gains. Some say it is easier some say it's tougher. Since I don't play there I can't say for sure. We do have some siege players. Hopefully they can answer that better.

Vepl

__________________