UO Second Age

At the very least, single clienting would be a good goal to work towards imo.

Faustus you don't have to consider this to be such a "massive overhaul" as there are way's to go about the change in a more subtle manner then a "one day you can one day you cant" type deal.

No one wants to hurt the shard or hamper the player base but changes sometimes do that. Some people don't like changes and it causes them to leave, others like them and it causes them to come. The fact of the matter right now in the free shard community there is a desire for single client shards.

Don't overlook the fact that a move like this can potentially benefit the shard's player base and add a new more authentic "feel" to Second Age.

I see no way in which the benefits of this move would outweigh the damages.

DrFaustus wrote:I see no way in which the benefits of this move would outweigh the damages.

I don't see how it would damage or help. It will simply be annoying to those who rely on multi-clienting and new players wouldn't notice. I still don't see the point though, especially if we're still allowed 3 accounts.

Corbin wrote:

DrFaustus wrote:I see no way in which the benefits of this move would outweigh the damages.

I don't see how it would damage or help. It will simply be annoying to those who rely on multi-clienting and new players wouldn't notice. I still don't see the point though, especially if we're still allowed 3 accounts.

Damage?

Piss off half the player base...fall out could occur. You have no way of telling what will happen as a result.

Benefit?

????

Let's speculate on risk vs reward:

Will potential players choose UOSA out of shard lists simply because multi-clienting is removed? Doubtful.

Will existing players stop playing UOSA because multi-clienting is removed? Quite possibly.

I see very little potential benefit.

DrFaustus wrote: Damage?

You have no way of telling what will happen as a result.

Benefit?

First off. you said it, you have no way of telling what will happen...my guess...nothing, patches come people stay or go, its the same process as before when we changed the melee or the spell timers or what ever other change we've made...

Benefit? um, this still to me seems like a pretty big no brainer...striving for exact replicate of t2a. I thought this is what we were striving for?

Actually, I loved UO Saviour before they shut down the project in alpha. One character, one account, and all characters were tied to the persons forum account. The plan was to create character responsibility, which it did. If board warriors were found in game, they needed to back up their talk. If someone was a scammer, word spread like wildfire, and outside of deleting that character or wearing a disguise kit at all times...you lived with your in-game deeds. With 3 accounts with 5 toons per account, it's easy to create characters with little to no accountability...la

Kryptonical wrote: Benefit? um, this still to me seems like a pretty big no brainer...striving for exact replicate of t2a. I thought this is what we were striving for?

Playing multiple accounts is era-accurate. This has been discussed before.

Kryptonical wrote:

DrFaustus wrote: Damage?

You have no way of telling what will happen as a result.

Benefit?

First off. you said it, you have no way of telling what will happen...my guess...nothing, patches come people stay or go, its the same process as before when we changed the melee or the spell timers or what ever other change we've made...

Benefit? um, this still to me seems like a pretty big no brainer...striving for exact replicate of t2a. I thought this is what we were striving for?

Lol, thanks for cutting out the most vital portion of my quote.

You and everyone else seem to keep forgetting that a number of people (currently 50% of the poll, if you want to use this horrid sample) don't want this.

Apparently this is not significant in anyone's eyes???????

DrFaustus wrote:Damage?

Piss off half the player base...fall out could occur. You have no way of telling what will happen as a result.

Benefit?

????

And if players leave, they will be replaced just like always with new ones. Heck, many players who were here last year have moved on (or been banned) and a new group has come in and are replacing them. It's the circle of... UO.

Mind you, I'm not defending this idea, I'm just saying this is how things work which is quite obvious. As I've said time and time again, I'd much rather see one account per player, but that's not gonna happen either.

*removed by GK* refuse to be trolled by faustus.

Corbin wrote:

DrFaustus wrote:Damage?

Piss off half the player base...fall out could occur. You have no way of telling what will happen as a result.

Benefit?

????

And if players leave, they will be replaced just like always with new ones. Heck, many players who were here last year have moved on (or been banned) and a new group has come in and are replacing them. It's the circle of... UO.

Mind you, I'm not defending this idea, I'm just saying this is how things work which is quite obvious. As I've said time and time again, I'd much rather see one account per player, but that's not gonna happen either.

Another /facepalm statement.

It appears hardly anyone here truly understands the seriousness of what's being debated. I can't keep arguing with people who fail to understand how much of a "change" you're asking for. This isn't a patch that fixes how coconuts stack people.

This change redefines second age.

REDEFINES IT.

*removed by GK* will not take part in this kind of forum argument.

GuardianKnight wrote:It's being debated....it won't happen so what are you worried about?

Weren't you just whining about me being an instigator? I'm starting to see why people throw you under the bus so much...

Seriously, get off me. I really haven't done anything to you, ever. You are arguing with no one here on a topic that even derrick said can never happen , early in the thread.

At this point you are just instigating. So just get off it.