UO Second Age

The question below is inspired by some ideas pitched by players inside another post of a server wipe. Some people seem for it and most seem against it. It seems that it would be difficult to tell if it would increase or decrease the population.

I am sure this idea has been coined already and I am sure that it has already been considered by the staff.

The question (for staff) is: Is there any chance that a second "Second Age" server could be established? A sister shard. One that is completely new mirroring the current mechanics of the shard we all enjoy. Kinda how we had Great Lakes, Chesapeke, Lake Superior, etc... (could it be argued that this would be more era accurate? )

Not that it would ever happen... but it seems to be a better option than wiping the shard clean to me. I also feel that it may increase players on both shards. (I know that this is very desirable for the staff albeit not a goal of the shard.)

I am sure the staff has already thought about this idea or has had this idea brought up in the past, but I never recall any dialogue about it.

I am sure that budget/time (or lack of) would be definite hurdles in creating a second secondage shard, but I am curious to see what would be needed to make it happen, what the staff has to say about the idea, and how other players feel about it.

Thanks for reading everyone.

X

a neat idea, as the current UOSA could be given events and the second server would give what the admins consider a "museum" with strict accuracy rules.

The cost would probably be the problem. There is even era president. Siege had much different rules then the other servers. I've also started to believe that the different servers like Great Lakes might have had slight coding differences then servers like chessy which would explain why people remember things differently some times.

People will complain that it would split the population even more, but it would probably bring an influx to counteract that.

I would play. It would give me another server to beat.

Capitalist wrote:I would play. It would give me another server to beat.

My sentiment.

I'd donate.

It would be an interesting poll to see how many of the current "established" players here would:
Not Play
Play Both
Pack Up and Play Exclusively on the "New" Old Server
Also how many would come back if the new one was more lenient about specific mechanics that once existed in the past on this shard.

That said. Ya know this is pipe dreamin' Xynosis

Segregating an already dwindling population is an exceptionally bad idea. If this gained any traction with staff, I would be floored.

That being said, I understand where you're coming from here; if we had a thriving population (say 500-1k active users per night) this idea might have some merit.

This was the reason the test shard was closed/changed, everyone was PvPing there and no one was bothering to log into the real shard.

I would come back for something like this...new T2A shard...IN

Soma wrote:This was the reason the test shard was closed/changed, everyone was PvPing there and no one was bothering to log into the real shard.

Sorry but thats because we were to busy having Fun!

The test server days were great, best duels, friendly guys.

tekai wrote:a neat idea, as the current UOSA could be given events and the second server would give what the admins consider a "museum" with strict accuracy rules.

The cost would probably be the problem. There is even era president. Siege had much different rules then the other servers. I've also started to believe that the different servers like Great Lakes might have had slight coding differences then servers like chessy which would explain why people remember things differently some times.

People will complain that it would split the population even more, but it would probably bring an influx to counteract that.

I haven't thought of it like that... but I have to agree; the new server could arguably become a much more accurate 'museum' for the second age era. In consideration that this shard is as accurate as it could ever be after all the years it has been tweaked for it to become what it is now.

Costs would definitely be an issue. I have no idea the hardware or needed connections to make it happen... but I would gladly donate a decent amount to the cause. As far as the old school shards being different... I can say with a high degree of certainty that on Great Lakes (the server I played on) I recall (most) all halberds being reversed. I also recall my toon always turning to the north if I was on foot after targeting something with a spell (myself included)... it seems that some other servers didn't have the same coding for sure.

It can be argued that the population would split. There is no way to know for sure. I am very sure that there would be an influx of veteran/new players if there were enough time given to launch a 'shard kickoff' and if everyone helped to spread the word. It would be exciting for many to have a chance to start over fresh.

Capitalist wrote:I would play. It would give me another server to beat.

Indeed it would. We (the people) need to keep you busy playing UO so you do not take over the REAL world/economy.
p.s. you are welcome.

inkognito wrote:

Capitalist wrote:I would play. It would give me another server to beat.

My sentiment.

I'd donate.

It would be an interesting poll to see how many of the current "established" players here would:
Not Play
Play Both
Pack Up and Play Exclusively on the "New" Old Server
Also how many would come back if the new one was more lenient about specific mechanics that once existed in the past on this shard.

That said. Ya know this is pipe dreamin' Xynosis

I agree strongly. It is a pipe dream... but it would be very cool to see it happen! I would gladly donate/help fundraise to help fund the needed hardware/labor costs.

Treysta wrote:Segregating an already dwindling population is an exceptionally bad idea. If this gained any traction with staff, I would be floored.

That being said, I understand where you're coming from here; if we had a thriving population (say 500-1k active users per night) this idea might have some merit.

I didn't think of that to be honest. I suppose it could be argued that it could also increase the player base in addition to dividing it. I am sure people may put more hours into the newer server... but I can imagine cross shard trading, new players curious to see/participate in the old old server, and all the hype of a new server causing an influx of game play. It would give people more reason to play.

Soma wrote:This was the reason the test shard was closed/changed, everyone was PvPing there and no one was bothering to log into the real shard.

I had no clue about that. I never even logged into the test server. I think I tried once and failed.
If the server was easily seen on the server menu, and people started with 100 gold, and couldn't set their skills to whatever, and the server saved everyday, I am pretty sure it would not be a threat to the old old server. I think that players would still play on the old shard as well as the new one. If it does drastically drop the population of the old old server, at least the old old server still retains its museum status.

Hypothetically speaking of course. If there was a second server... would players have to pick which of their three accounts would be logged in on either server correct? Would it be wrong to allow three clients per server to be logged in? Would that decrease division between servers or just be a nuisance?

I know that this is just a pipe dream... but I am having fun with it. I like the input so far. Keep it coming.

The old test server was awesome, reg stones, spawning halberds and an infinitely filled red keg... If you felt like dueling you could spend hours there without concern.

There were insta-ress gates and areas where you could heal to full hp/mana/stam after dying... You could set skills/stats and try out new builds, and my favorite feature was that world saves weren't 15 seconds long...

Above all, the best feeling was just killing people for hours on end without having to worry about finding more people/restocking.

I would start playing again in a heartbeat if this happened. As it stands I just refresh in hopes that I regain the desire to play again some day.

xynosis wrote:

tekai wrote:
Hypothetically speaking of course. If there was a second server... would players have to pick which of their three accounts would be logged in on either server correct? Would it be wrong to allow three clients per server to be logged in? Would that decrease division between servers or just be a nuisance?

I know that this is just a pipe dream... but I am having fun with it. I like the input so far. Keep it coming.

Too bad it is just a pipe dream. One of the most exciting things to me back in the OSI days was moving to a new server. Half of the fun of the game is becoming established in the world of Britannia, and it's a lot harder to do when others have been there for years and you have been there for hours.

I would think three clients per server would be fine. I wouldn't even give pause before dropping all I have and starting from scratch with some new characters on a fresh shard.

I would play on it. There are plenty of people who play on multiple shards. I would bet almost everyone who once played UOSA would come back to try it.

Will Sinker wrote:I would start playing again in a heartbeat if this happened. As it stands I just refresh in hopes that I regain the desire to play again some day.

Just drop your houses.