We need change, for the sake of the server.

[Kaivan]

Treysta's post is a great example... a PERFECT example of why GM's have little to no motivation to bring back events OR have much of a presence in game, in forums, and IRC. In this case, if you are Anarcho, aka the only "active GM"... you get the most criticism and guff from the people who simply play the shard without any sort of responsibility.

The harder you work to help, the more crap you get.

Anarcho's level or lack of activity has nothing to do with my criticism. My criticism is rooted in his actions. If other GMs were both more active AND implemented unfair stealth-patches and micromanaged what I could have in my signature, I would criticize them as well. Just as I would if they were inactive and implemented unfair stealth-patches. Did you miss the part of my post where I simultaneously called Mammoth active and didn't criticize him?

Then you'd better get to criticizing Derrick for releasing a housing patch that have benefited certain players that was later pulled, without warning in both directions (wind housing patch). In fact, you can do one better. You can argue that Derrick was exercising blatant favoritism for certain group of players' opinions when he changed the speed of a katana from known listed numbers to a lesser number based on a single forwarded e-mail about a player who doubted the speed of the katana, all while ignoring far more reliable evidence. Not only did he exercise poor judgement and thoughtlessly implement such patches, he did so at the advice of specific players without the best forms of evidence! The terrible injustice of these actions should be criticized, right?

Or, the far more rational position could be taken that changes were made with what was considered the best information at the time, which sometimes means that we'll find information that might point in a different direction - a fact that sometimes causes mistakes. The same logic could be applied to patches that are implemented, and found to have a mistake in them. Do they sometimes benefit some players? Yes. Does that provide any reasonable footing by which to accuse us of favoritism, corruption, or thoughtlessness? Hardly. But given your accusations on these subjects, the idea that mistakes happen doesn't seem to cross your mind.

And what about the major problem of micro-managing what is in your forum signature? Its not like we have forum rules & shard rules regarding the types of things that players should and shouldn't be saying, including in their forum signatures. So what could possibly cause a member of the staff even bother you about something like that? The logic you're applying is astounding when you go after someone for doing their job.

Finally regarding "stealth patches", you'll find - if you spend any time to look, that virtually none of our patches are announced ahead of time, which makes all of our patches into dreaded "stealth" patches. This isn't new, nor is this unheard of, and it certainly isn't some terrible injustice when something is added in that later has to be pulled because it didn't work properly. Yes, this sometimes means that some players will benefit while others won't but that's just how these things happen sometimes.

Here's an example of something I wouldn't say because it makes UOSA members feel like we aren't worthy of a genuine, transparent answer:

Whatever we feel can appropriately be done will be done when it can be done. This does not include drumming up population by adding in automated events.

To me, an apparent rule of any honest discussion is not to lie. If I gave you a concrete statement on what would happen that you would likely deem transparent at this time, I would be lying about what was going to happen, because I don't know exactly what will happen. I've told you everything that I can at this time, which includes the fact that we will do whatever we feel can appropriately be done within the mandates of the server, and that we'll do it when time allows us to do so. I've also told you exactly what won't happen in that regard, but beyond that, I have no answers. Yet, that doesn't seem like an acceptable answer to you, and instead you're content with straw-maning what I said as a lack of transparency, despite me giving you whatever I can. Hell, you can't even be bothered to ask me to clarify what I meant - you just assume that I believe players aren't worthy of any transparency (I really wonder what I've been doing for 6 years if I think that players are unworthy of things).

Even Kaivan's followup reply is the opposite of transparent:

I can't speak for any of the others, but my opinion is that we should get back to releasing patches on a much more regular basis. While I can't quantify, nor even necessarily guarantee that a population increase will occur along side the patches, releasing patches will at least show a commitment to our core goal, which is fundamentally important to the server overall.

What patches? What changes? I realize GMs are petrified of creating expectations and then failing to deliver. That's highly understandable. But what's stopping GMs from having open discussions with the shard on what type of ideas they've had and the direction the future patches are headed? The people here want a shred of hope, and nobody is prepared to deliver one at the expense of vets and new players dropping left and right.

I thought that I had 153 patches worth of answers to the question of "what changes?" - I apologize if it wasn't apparent as it has been in the past. We have a mandate of attempting to re-create the mechanics of the era as best as possible, and as we can see from the entirety of the patches made before now, that is what we are focused on when we release patches. Thus, getting "back to releasing patches" means just that, getting back to releasing patches to fix mechanics.

If you require something more concrete than that, then here's a good one: actually implementing T2A era housing correctly, which includes the removal of co-owners among other things.

We are lucky to have this FREE shard. It is FREE. You cannot really complain about something that is free unless you are spoiled.

Xynosis' post is a great example... a PERFECT example of why change is so difficult. Something that's free is still a product. It still has a market, it still has people working on it, and it still has people who look forward to logging on in the evening. Saying that we can't criticize or offer suggestion (as I believe you meant when you used the word "complain") just because something is free is asinine.

Google is free. Should we not complain if Google services start sucking? League of Legends is free. Should gamers not complain when the servers are down or unstable for weeks on end? If anything, free products fundamentally rely on criticism, especially if they're not being optimally monetized, like UOSA.

The problem lies in the part that I bolded. We aren't a business, and we aren't attempting to monetize UOSA. If we were, we'd obviously have a micro transaction store like most other free servers, and we'd ride any perceived hype for anything that people wanted changed because they would find it enjoyable in the short term.

Of course, this isn't to say that we are opposed to criticism, we've been open to people discussing things with us, and I've responded to threads like this for over 6 years, but it's certainly reasonable to point out that we aren't run in the way that you think we should be run.

[Capitalist]

Wait. There are people that believe Anarcho and I aren't in cahoots? The only reason I don't have Wind is because Eo recalled there and was watching us throw snowballs and bagged milk at each other. One time, he sent me to trammel and told me to pick out my favorite pair of AzHeman panties. They're currently in my "Anarcho gift bag", which is a newbied bag I hold on Bink.

[Treysta]

Then you'd better get to criticizing Derrick for releasing a housing patch that have benefited certain players that was later pulled, without warning in both directions (wind housing patch). In fact, you can do one better. You can argue that Derrick was exercising blatant favoritism for certain group of players' opinions when he changed the speed of a katana from known listed numbers to a lesser number based on a single forwarded e-mail about a player who doubted the speed of the katana, all while ignoring far more reliable evidence. Not only did he exercise poor judgement and thoughtlessly implement such patches, he did so at the advice of specific players without the best forms of evidence! The terrible injustice of these actions should be criticized, right?

Or, the far more rational position could be taken that changes were made with what was considered the best information at the time, which sometimes means that we'll find information that might point in a different direction - a fact that sometimes causes mistakes. The same logic could be applied to patches that are implemented, and found to have a mistake in them. Do they sometimes benefit some players? Yes. Does that provide any reasonable footing by which to accuse us of favoritism, corruption, or thoughtlessness? Hardly. But given your accusations on these subjects, the idea that mistakes happen doesn't seem to cross your mind.

I never once argued favoritism with Anarcho's housing patch, please don't stretch my criticism to things that it isn't. Obviously the housing patch was a mistake and needed a fix, hence it being taken off, and obviously these things happen in day to day life. UOSA is no different; Anarcho is a human. That being said, with mistakes come criticism. If you guys are going to make a mistake, you can reasonably expect somebody to address that mistake in the form of criticism, and I feel strongly that that person is not being wrong or negative for doing so. I don't hate Anarcho or think he's an incompetent GM for making that mistake, but I can and will mention it within the confines of a post where I'm evaluating GMs based off of my anecdotes since being here.

And what about the major problem of micro-managing what is in your forum signature? Its not like we have forum rules & shard rules regarding the types of things that players should and shouldn't be saying, including in their forum signatures. So what could possibly cause a member of the staff even bother you about something like that? The logic you're applying is astounding when you go after someone for doing their job.

Can you find me a rule saying I can't directly quote something publicly said by somebody on these forums? If I've missed that rule, by all means, I completely and utterly apologize for making a fuss about it.

Finally regarding "stealth patches", you'll find - if you spend any time to look, that virtually none of our patches are announced ahead of time, which makes all of our patches into dreaded "stealth" patches. This isn't new, nor is this unheard of, and it certainly isn't some terrible injustice when something is added in that later has to be pulled because it didn't work properly. Yes, this sometimes means that some players will benefit while others won't but that's just how these things happen sometimes.

I believe a "stealth" patch is, essentially, an unannounced patch that can generate an unfair advantage to those who happen to log on first that morning. I am against this practice. If you're going to release something like a housing patch, give players ample warning. That's my opinion.

To me, an apparent rule of any honest discussion is not to lie. If I gave you a concrete statement on what would happen that you would likely deem transparent at this time, I would be lying about what was going to happen, because I don't know exactly what will happen. I've told you everything that I can at this time, which includes the fact that we will do whatever we feel can appropriately be done within the mandates of the server, and that we'll do it when time allows us to do so. I've also told you exactly what won't happen in that regard, but beyond that, I have no answers. Yet, that doesn't seem like an acceptable answer to you, and instead you're content with straw-maning what I said as a lack of transparency, despite me giving you whatever I can. Hell, you can't even be bothered to ask me to clarify what I meant - you just assume that I believe players aren't worthy of any transparency (I really wonder what I've been doing for 6 years if I think that players are unworthy of things).

I don't need you to clarify what you meant as I understood it completely, and I am cognizant of the fact that you're telling us all that you can given the circumstances. However, if you can't tell us what kinds of patches and ideas the GMs have come up with, moving forward, then is it safe to assume that there are no ideas?

I thought that I had 153 patches worth of answers to the question of "what changes?" - I apologize if it wasn't apparent as it has been in the past. We have a mandate of attempting to re-create the mechanics of the era as best as possible, and as we can see from the entirety of the patches made before now, that is what we are focused on when we release patches. Thus, getting "back to releasing patches" means just that, getting back to releasing patches to fix mechanics.

If you require something more concrete than that, then here's a good one: actually implementing T2A era housing correctly, which includes the removal of co-owners among other things.

I asked "what patches" and "what changes" in relation to you saying "get back to releasing patches on a much more regular basis". To clarify further, I'm asking what patches and changes do you, the GMs, have planned. The meaning of my question seems obvious if you take the context into account. What kind of patches are you planning on releasing, what kind of ideas do you have? If you don't have any planned patches or ideas, why announce that you want to go back to releasing them on a regular basis?

The problem lies in the part that I bolded. We aren't a business, and we aren't attempting to monetize UOSA. If we were, we'd obviously have a micro transaction store like most other free servers, and we'd ride any perceived hype for anything that people wanted changed because they would find it enjoyable in the short term.

This is naturally a subjective topic, but it's of my opinion that the fact that UOSA isn't monetized is even further motivation for users to criticize the status quo because we can't vote with our wallets. It's either play the game or don't. Additionally, players like Xynosis condemn criticism on the grounds that "it's a free shard, shut up and take what you're given". The atmosphere here lately can been summarized as "hopeless", which is incredibly unfortunate. I firmly believe that the community here is the most important part of the shard, and that if the community is going to suffer to the extent that we are currently, then something should be done.

Of course, this isn't to say that we are opposed to criticism, we've been open to people discussing things with us, and I've responded to threads like this for over 6 years, but it's certainly reasonable to point out that we aren't run in the way that you think we should be run.

I appreciate this conversation more than my text belies. You taking this initiative and having this conversation with me is a great thing. Will I ever completely agree on how things are run here? Probably not, but the fact that this conversation is even happening in the first place is a reassuring thing given that the crux of my argument was that GMs are not as involved and/or transparent with the community as they should be.

I am a critic, but you can ask anybody here that knows me: I am a reasonable person. I understand that this is not my shard and I have no control over how things are run, but I feel strongly as though I should be allowed to be a critic without retaliation, which is indeed being condoned. Allow me this opportunity to thank you for your replies.

[Kaivan]

Then you'd better get to criticizing Derrick for releasing a housing patch that have benefited certain players that was later pulled, without warning in both directions (wind housing patch). In fact, you can do one better. You can argue that Derrick was exercising blatant favoritism for certain group of players' opinions when he changed the speed of a katana from known listed numbers to a lesser number based on a single forwarded e-mail about a player who doubted the speed of the katana, all while ignoring far more reliable evidence. Not only did he exercise poor judgement and thoughtlessly implement such patches, he did so at the advice of specific players without the best forms of evidence! The terrible injustice of these actions should be criticized, right?

Or, the far more rational position could be taken that changes were made with what was considered the best information at the time, which sometimes means that we'll find information that might point in a different direction - a fact that sometimes causes mistakes. The same logic could be applied to patches that are implemented, and found to have a mistake in them. Do they sometimes benefit some players? Yes. Does that provide any reasonable footing by which to accuse us of favoritism, corruption, or thoughtlessness? Hardly. But given your accusations on these subjects, the idea that mistakes happen doesn't seem to cross your mind.

I never once argued favoritism with Anarcho's housing patch, please don't stretch my criticism to things that it isn't.

I never said that you did, but you certainly implied that it was the case, despite what you said afterwards:

Another issue I had with Anarcho is when he released a housing placement patch that allowed the players to obtain top tier houses that were previously unattainable. Seems cool, right?

Facts:

• Players received no previous notice of this housing patch, which means that...
• Only those who were on right after downtime had any shot at placing these houses because...
• The patch was rolled back on live a few hours after being implemented.
• The housing patch is still not live while the newly grandfathered houses still remain.
• The patch was originally implemented May 14th 2014.

All I did was merely point out that you could make the same argument for what Derrick has done in the past, and that you could easily extend the implication and explicitly state it, but that the exercise is asinine. The larger point is that criticizing the fact that it happened isn't productive, and that the issue with Anarcho's patch is dead and dealt with in the same way that these previous issues are.

Obviously the housing patch was a mistake and needed a fix, hence it being taken off, and obviously these things happen in day to day life. UOSA is no different; Anarcho is a human. That being said, with mistakes come criticism. If you guys are going to make a mistake, you can reasonably expect somebody to address that mistake in the form of criticism, and I feel strongly that that person is not being wrong or negative for doing so. I don't hate Anarcho or think he's an incompetent GM for making that mistake, but I can and will mention it within the confines of a post where I'm evaluating GMs based off of my anecdotes since being here.

So what criticism are you leveling at Anarcho over this? All that I've seen thus far is that you pointed out that a mistake was made, called it thoughtless, and implied that we should have pulled down the houses, which runs counter to the way that we have addressed possession of items for the entire time that UOSA has existed. thus far, this mostly amounts to meaningless criticism that does nothing at all but make noise.

And what about the major problem of micro-managing what is in your forum signature? Its not like we have forum rules & shard rules regarding the types of things that players should and shouldn't be saying, including in their forum signatures. So what could possibly cause a member of the staff even bother you about something like that? The logic you're applying is astounding when you go after someone for doing their job.

Can you find me a rule saying I can't directly quote something publicly said by somebody on these forums? If I've missed that rule, by all means, I completely and utterly apologize for making a fuss about it.

We have a basic shard rule that expects players to respect the staff, as we try to do in return. While I don't know the context of what was in your signature before it was removed, it is self evident that a statement taken as a snippet to be used in a signature can be used to attack a staff member by removing context. If the statement fell into that category, it certainly needed to be removed, and I tend to trust that the actions taken by other staff members are reasonable when handling these matters.

Finally regarding "stealth patches", you'll find - if you spend any time to look, that virtually none of our patches are announced ahead of time, which makes all of our patches into dreaded "stealth" patches. This isn't new, nor is this unheard of, and it certainly isn't some terrible injustice when something is added in that later has to be pulled because it didn't work properly. Yes, this sometimes means that some players will benefit while others won't but that's just how these things happen sometimes.

I believe a "stealth" patch is, essentially, an unannounced patch that can generate an unfair advantage to those who happen to log on first that morning.

While you're entitled to your opinion on how players should be informed about certain things, that certainly doesn't mean that the definition of two words, stealth (to do something secretly) and patch (a code update to fix or change a program behavior), suddenly take on an extra meaning when combined. A "stealth patch" is exactly that, a patch released without any forewarning, which is how we normally do things.

To me, an apparent rule of any honest discussion is not to lie. If I gave you a concrete statement on what would happen that you would likely deem transparent at this time, I would be lying about what was going to happen, because I don't know exactly what will happen. I've told you everything that I can at this time, which includes the fact that we will do whatever we feel can appropriately be done within the mandates of the server, and that we'll do it when time allows us to do so. I've also told you exactly what won't happen in that regard, but beyond that, I have no answers. Yet, that doesn't seem like an acceptable answer to you, and instead you're content with straw-maning what I said as a lack of transparency, despite me giving you whatever I can. Hell, you can't even be bothered to ask me to clarify what I meant - you just assume that I believe players aren't worthy of any transparency (I really wonder what I've been doing for 6 years if I think that players are unworthy of things).

I don't need you to clarify what you meant as I understood it completely, and I am cognizant of the fact that you're telling us all that you can given the circumstances.

Then why were you saying that I wasn't being transparent? If I told you everything that I can, that is as transparent as I can be.

However, if you can't tell us what kinds of patches and ideas the GMs have come up with, moving forward, then is it safe to assume that there are no ideas?

I've given you an example of a mechanic that we need to work on as part of a mechanics patch, but beyond that, I don't know what the current plans are for events such as town invasions (something handled by other staff members), or publicizing the server (something that we have no staff dedicated to, nor is it something that we are responsible for). Expanding further on the exact patches that are produced, I have no control over that. Mainly, things get worked on as Anarcho has the time for it, and tasks are tackled in the order that best fits his availability. As of now, I can list many things that need to be looked at in terms of mechanics, but I can't tell you the order they will be dealt with in. As a case in point, look back to my previous example of correct T2A housing; that's something that I've been asking to be patched in for 4 years.

I thought that I had 153 patches worth of answers to the question of "what changes?" - I apologize if it wasn't apparent as it has been in the past. We have a mandate of attempting to re-create the mechanics of the era as best as possible, and as we can see from the entirety of the patches made before now, that is what we are focused on when we release patches. Thus, getting "back to releasing patches" means just that, getting back to releasing patches to fix mechanics.

If you require something more concrete than that, then here's a good one: actually implementing T2A era housing correctly, which includes the removal of co-owners among other things.

I asked "what patches" and "what changes" in relation to you saying "get back to releasing patches on a much more regular basis".

I'm aware that you asked that, and the response you quoted told you exactly what I meant: get back to releasing patches to fix mechanics.

To clarify further, I'm asking what patches and changes do you, the GMs, have planned.

I partially re-answered this above, but one of my previous responses said that "we should get back to releasing patches...". This clearly means that we have no patches in the works at this time, otherwise I would have said "We are currently working on a patch...".

The meaning of my question seems obvious if you take the context into account. What kind of patches are you planning on releasing, what kind of ideas do you have?

Clearly the context isn't clear, as it seems like you're ignoring the temporal component of the context. When I say that I would like something to be done, it clearly indicates that right now it isn't being done, so asking what we're doing right now in the context of what I originally said is meaningless because it was already answered.

If you don't have any planned patches or ideas, why announce that you want to go back to releasing them on a regular basis?

I responded to a question about what I would like to do, not what we were planning on doing or were currently doing. This is entirely different than saying "We are currently working on something" and then giving no answers whatsoever on the specifics on it.

The problem lies in the part that I bolded. We aren't a business, and we aren't attempting to monetize UOSA. If we were, we'd obviously have a micro transaction store like most other free servers, and we'd ride any perceived hype for anything that people wanted changed because they would find it enjoyable in the short term.

This is naturally a subjective topic, but it's of my opinion that the fact that UOSA isn't monetized is even further motivation for users to criticize the status quo because we can't vote with our wallets. It's either play the game or don't.

That's exactly the point. We're not here to cater to the demands of any specific group, otherwise things would have operated very differently from the ground up.

The atmosphere here lately can been summarized as "hopeless", which is incredibly unfortunate. I firmly believe that the community here is the most important part of the shard, and that if the community is going to suffer to the extent that we are currently, then something should be done.

There are several things to point out in response to this.

For one, while it is probably true that many players have a sense of hopelessness regarding the state of things, this is occurring within the context (at least the last 6 to 8 months) of an increased presence of in-game events, and an increase in staff activity over the same period from the year before. Yet, as these things occurred, the general consensus has stayed the same. This shows that no one seems to view these changes as a remedy for their feelings.

Second, a small but vocal group of players continue to point to an automated event system as the cure to all of our problems, despite the fact that several very long discussions exist to point out why such a system is incompatible with our core goals. Even if we assume that the entire reduction in population is directly linked to the loss of automated events, this creates a problem where if we re-introduced these types of events, it would represent a departure from our core goals, and would throw us right into the mix with other free servers (can anyone really find a logical argument against "Well, you made an exception for automated events so why can't you make an exception for x"? If not, we would be no different than other free servers developers.).

Third, and somewhat ironically, the long term success of UOSA has been predicated on the fact that we maintain an impartial position. By asking for something that breaks with that impartiality, players are asking us to make a subjective move that will be enjoyable to some subset of the population with the assumption that it will bring more players. However, once that occurs, the stability that built UOSA is thrown right out the window, which ironically opens the doors to any number of changes, ruining the very stability that attracted many players in the first place. Of course, players can hope that we will make the right changes such that they can have their cake and eat it too, but exactly what those changes are is an entirely subjective matter, and cannot be reasonably accounted for at any time.

Now, as this relates to your point regarding the population as the most important part of the shard; players are certainly a significant part of a sizable number of our decisions, but population size is not the ultimate criteria for UOSA. We have a certain set of things that we are capable of doing while maintaining our core goal, and we can try to do our best within those confines. However, if what we're doing within those confines does not garner any more interest in the server, then, quite simply, we are out of options. We cannot be reasonably expected to shift the entire way that the server works.

Of course, this isn't to say that we are opposed to criticism, we've been open to people discussing things with us, and I've responded to threads like this for over 6 years, but it's certainly reasonable to point out that we aren't run in the way that you think we should be run.

I appreciate this conversation more than my text belies. You taking this initiative and having this conversation with me is a great thing. Will I ever completely agree on how things are run here? Probably not, but the fact that this conversation is even happening in the first place is a reassuring thing given that the crux of my argument was that GMs are not as involved and/or transparent with the community as they should be.

While I appreciate that your recognize that we are engaging when we can, it is important to point out that we are as transparent about things as can reasonably be expected, and that we are as involved as is necessary/possible.

[Capitalist]

Now, as this relates to your point regarding the population as the most important part of the shard; players are certainly a significant part of a sizable number of our decisions, but population size is not the ultimate criteria for UOSA. We have a certain set of things that we are capable of doing while maintaining our core goal, and we can try to do our best within those confines. However, if what we're doing within those confines does not garner any more interest in the server, then, quite simply, we are out of options. We cannot be reasonably expected to shift the entire way that the server works.

Kind of like when you guys took out events?

[Budner]

As usual this has devolved into a discussion of butt hurtness, ancient history, hand wringing, finger-pointing, semantics, and general tit-for-tat. Although personally I prefer tit-for-tit.

As Sean Connery said in The Untouchables:

WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?

[Onslaught-]

Aye, it seems people are more interested in pointing fingers and defending the past where time would be better spent moving forward and figuring out what to do now.

[Anarcho]

Anarcho

Finally an active GM! He has an IRC presence, deploys patches, and posts on forums a bit, usually to moderate them. In fact, Anarcho is in my eyes the only active GM on the shard. That being said, I do have criticism.

One example is when I directly quoted something Anarcho publicly posted on this very forum that I viewed as hypocritical and/or hilarious. He PM'd me immediately on IRC and informed me that he removed my signature and if I return the quote to my sig, I'll be forum banned because (not verbatim) "we're GM's and we don't have to put up with your shit" . I personally believe that criticism is the backbone to constructive change and that if I say something publicly, it's fair game to be quoted. At the end of the day, I am cognizant of the fact that this is a game and GM's are allowed to flex their authority as they see fit. I readily admit I may have pestered Anarcho too frequently and that his frustration with me could very well be justified.

Another issue I had with Anarcho is when he released a housing placement patch that allowed the players to obtain top tier houses that were previously unattainable. Seems cool, right?

Facts:

• Players received no previous notice of this housing patch, which means that...
• Only those who were on right after downtime had any shot at placing these houses because...
• The patch was rolled back on live a few hours after being implemented.
• The housing patch is still not live while the newly grandfathered houses still remain.
• The patch was originally implemented May 14th 2014.

Let me emphasize the notion that I believe Anarcho's intentions in releasing this patch were indeed innocent. Was this patch some clever conspiracy to allow Vega to place an Ocllo bank house or Eo to grab the Trinsic gate house? Of course not, and anybody who thinks that's the case is very clearly mistaken. It was, however, a very unfair and thoughtlessly implemented patch, and the way the mistake was handled is a direct indication of why I believe we need more active GMs to help handle these types of situations and ensure they don't influence the integrity of UOSA's gameplay.

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet so I apologise if this has already been addressed.

I can't recall the specific situation regarding your signature, but I do recall one or two situations with players quoting me from years ago as a player simply to taunt me - I can't think of any reason other than begging for a response. Criticism is allowed but the taunting isn't and never has been on UOSA.

As far as the housing patch goes; these are similar changes to what Derrick had put in at one time and a similar situation of grandfathered houses appeared. That is UO, I'm sorry it didn't work out in favor. There is over a decade history of these things happening on OSI as well.

[a swallow]

THIS place is a museum?!?!

[Capitalist]

Did you finally quit swallow?

[a swallow]

not sure what the plans are now.

if this whole shard is just a museum then why do we have skills?

[Jay]

if what we're doing within those confines does not garner any more interest in the server, then, quite simply, we are out of options.

There is one option though that a few people think would be a good idea to try in some fashion or another...





A U T O M A T E D
E V E N T S

Events that

*Are mechanically era accurate
*Do not give significant reward, if any
*Are consistently scheduled
*Include some risk (costs gold to enter etc.)


Since no one is barring automated events based on any personal bias why don't we open up some dialog about what we can do, or may be able to try on a tentative basis?

[Kaivan]

This is something that has been discussed at great length in the past, and the conclusion that they are incompatible with the core server goals still stands.

[Budner]

This is something that has been discussed at great length in the past, and the conclusion that they are incompatible with the core server goals still stands.

Shouldn't THE core server goal be SURVIVAL?

[Kaivan]

For some servers, yes. The core goal is to survive via donations and to achieve the highest player count possible. UOSA has a fundamentally different goal from the ground up, so that is not the main goal of the server.