Suggestion to make SotA server ownership available for a fee.

Not sure what you're talking about or why the hostility, but I will say that there is a significant public outcry for a "UO2" as you can see with several titles trying to be it. LoA for example.

Still, this idea in itself has nothing to do with becoming UO2. It just technically would be the fullest form of UO2, not only because of Lord British's personal touch and blessing, but also because SotA with player ran servers and modding tools would be the most similar game to what UO has become.

 

Greetings all. I very much agree with @Synergy Blaize and others that have said no to this. The idea is a great end of life plan and should be available when and if the game ever shuts down. Think of it from a business point of view. If I have a company that makes a product and I allow people to make the same product with changes or without what does that do to my business model. Wouldn't the many different versions that get produced (because everyone want it to be a specific way) take buyers away from me? How do I control the perception and value of the item that I created and brought to market when people try a "similar" version that they do not like?

If you want to change the game work with the DEVs to do it. If it doesn't workout the way you want remember you are 1 of so many people that want the game to be different in a way they think is better. If the game fails as some of the people who want to he game to be what they want it to be say, then get a free or mostly free license to setup your own version. Or build your own game.

 

With a player-base so divided, the current lack of bandwidth, and lack of DEV+ game assets being released this would be great! With such a strong community, you could only imagine the community content that would be created if SotA were opened up for modding.

All I want is SotA arena PvP, that would take place in one instance, with pre-R14 era combat mechanics. No attunement (maybe keep attunement with negative attunement), There would be level caps and avatars would level via PvP. No dealing with outrageous crafting RNG for equipment, avatars would earn currency Obsidian Trial style to purchase equipment. Add-on store items would strictly sell skins. They would be obtained by obtaining crates and being charged to open these crates as you see in games like PUBG and CSGO.

But, If possible, I'd play a full blown PvP SotA server with PvP flagging mechanics similar to Pre-T2A (before Trammel). No private instances that provide xp/loot/resources, full loot, guards watch over avatars/NPCs in town, anyone can be attacked or stolen from, houses can be broken into and robbed if not properly secured, drastically limited bank space compared to now, extended guild overview mechanics (like UO guild stone), meaningful and more powerful combat pets with more restriction (or much more difficult) to gain access to them.

Yah... One could only wish. Great idea though!

 

Take a game that caters to a niche of a niche and fragment its already small playerbase.... Doesn't sound wise to me.

 

Not sure you're seeing the bigger picture here.

Aye, the more community modding the better for any community funded project, indeed. Makes sense to me at least.

I can see that there is an argument to be made for how our investment is spent, sure. Some might say that they wouldn't want their funding to go towards anything but fulfilling what was promised. However, this could be the exact right path toward not only delivering what has been promised and much more, but also increasing profitability. Above all I really feel like this would be Lord British and team's forte. SotA code IMO is really top notch, avoiding many of the common bugs and economic catastrophes that plague MMOs. This is what makes it so well suited to be the next big default MMO for the genre.

Everything just seems all too perfectly aligned for this right now, and we may not get another chance. I understand there are those who would prefer to see the ship sink before doing this, leaving behind a struggling freeshard community permanently tainted with failure and constantly fighting for the last bit of population to keep them afloat, but that truly sounds like a complete waste of time to me. It really is. Doing this while the game has support is the way to go. Portalarium could easily tie in a monthly subscription for regular updates to the core systems, and non-subscribers could simply be disconnected from the network for quality control purposes.

At any rate, the good Lord British has already informed us that the server will never go down regardless of population, and to be honest it could probably stay up with nothing but tiny hosting fees for decades to come. You can delay death as long as you like but at the cost of never really living.

Players are a funny breed; no two are the same. They each have different things they like and dislike, and so they all eventually leave to find what's missing.

So, why not have them all searching through the same Portal, Portalarium??

Fulfill your destiny.

 

If the server is custimizeable enough i would not only create a T2A-style (pre-Trammel, pre-Electronic Arts) version, also would change NPC behavior, the Skill tree, how to learn recipes and skill. It would also be a "roll your own class" instead of a classless one. That means some sort of caping. And some more things.
Was also thinking about gates on the overland map that leads to another world. But everyone has to start in SotA and all accounts belong to Port.

But i am also capable to write ideas to this forum. Also one problem freeshards had was/is low population. Well, back in 1997 there where not much MMO games. It was much more easier to keep people in one game.
SotA needs to solve the low population problem while maintain the longlivity of the game. The last changes that where made in this game are more made for fast-food gamers, new players are capable to consume the game within one summer. (2x XP, UT)

With the changes written above the world feels different. Like it was with Trammel and Felucca. Even when Port. has all accounts and everyone starts in Novia, it would divide the population. To allowing shards right now will only sharpen the low poplation problem. That is also the reason i never wrote the idea with the gates to this forum.
First SotA has to become mature, stable, populated and well known.
One of the slogans Origin has is "We creating worlds", may they remember...

I am voting no.

If you want another game derived from SotA / UO - today there are frameworks available like Unreal Engine, Unity Engine and others. The sphere-server project is also still alive.

 

Right. However, most freeshards haven't been run as a business with their own advertising.

Often it's just fans who are bored that develop these shards, and often they could care less about whether or not it's successful so long as one other person enjoyed it. But when one shard comes along and acts as though it paid top dollar for the product and does an excellent job getting the word out with some really exquisite targeted ads on social media?? It brings new people to the game, and they do often end up trying the other local flavors, especially when it's made easy for them. Not just people, but when ran properly as a business they could even be hiring developers to create content that typically gets shared around as well. Well, that's exactly whats been happening over at Ultima Online with the UO:Forever server. The owner sells custom made donation items, and uses the money to pay for advertising and development. 9 new maps this year alone. not to mention a nice launcher now used by various other shards, besides the thousands of people who have now played UO after seeing his ads, even if the game is dated and they didn't stay long.

That's apparently what many of you seem to be missing here, and I can't say I blame you. Shining examples like UO:Forever are far and few between, but less so when first charged a substantial fee. I had hoped we would get to a point where we could determine a hypothetical figure for that, but unfortunately nobody seems to have wanted to work together and build on this idea yet. Perhaps I'll see something constructive later whilst I'm drinking my morning tea. We shall see.

 

Definetly NO for the same , many reasons everyone already posted ....and i dont think people missed your points ...they just dont agree with them.

 

*cough*

Ahem.

Yeah right nobody seems to want ?

Now you know how it feels to be accused to split the community, while you are stating one of RG's MAIN GOALS for SOTA, being able to portal from world to world.

It doesn't hurt yet... but give it time, even when you're mangled and maimed, bleeding arts and artists... they'll turn that knife in the wound.

Not only that, we were sold DEV+ with the perk : "You can use all our assets to make your own version if the game if you so wish, royalty free".

Basically, you just built a bridge to a nice idea that always has been the plan, and THAT ladies and gentlemen is why you see mobs with torches and pitchforks wanting to burn it down. Very logical world...

Heck I had more fun playing with my 50 playerbase after a few years on my first freeshard the population switched to others because of much better network connection, than when it was populated with 500+ players.

I had time to build their quests, make 100% custom content for each player and their roleplay, it was amazing... fond memories.

I love to code, can't help it I even wake up in the middle of the night with ideas.

I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

 

The prevailing opinion on these boards has been that SOTA would benefit from more critical mass, not less and scattered. So its hard to see a 'free shards' idea gaining traction.

But the good news is that you already can play solo or with friends only 'in your own shard' if you want. For example, go into party mode, invite your friends, and have everyone flag as PVP.

You just wont be able to reprogram the game.

As for being slighted by a game two decades on? Time to leave that behind, my friend. ​

 

Both things are really easy to say...

 

I was going to take this thread serious until i read this post, which is full of inaccurate information and even some right out lies.

I have staffed most high level UO Freeshards since 2000 such as Blitzkrieg, Defiance, UO:Gamers, InPorYlem and more. None of them are ever ran by " people who dont care if its successfull or not " . Not a single one. They are all being ran as businesses where you create content to sell in order to pay the bills and develop them further. And *ALL* of them are filled to the brim with Corruption where Staff sell Money and items on the side for real Money, where friends get benifits and they boost their own accounts. ALL of them, no exceptions.

Your shameless advertisment for UO:Forever should be ignored, It's not Worth anyones time.

It's a FACT that a "Freeshard" option for Sota is a horrible horrible idea, and anyone who " see the big Picture " know this, because it would take what we already are missing, player numbers.
How you Think that a freeshard would fund further development of Sota, im yet to hear.

Just no, Period.

 

Wow ok I never took Jamma's defense yet...

but what you're saying sounds like a psy-op here...

The devs have ADVERTISED on freeshards, taking their "already low" boo boo numbers away, nobody cried People do what they want, play what they want...

You are now accusing them all of being 100% for money... if that is what those servers you visited became, then too bad for them...

The truth outside the ... shameless... psy-op is that there are hundreds of freeshards, and that you can well enjoy the game MORE with only a steady 500 players instead of the high 5000 on "commercial, supposedly corrupt" shards...

Having one highly organised guild of PKs on one shard is already enough challenge for common folks... so why look for a highly populated one anyways... unless you are a hardcore PvPer which is very few among us, then that type of gameplay can be a challenge, but even then... it would only prove ALOT of people are into old school PVP, LOL.

Meh.

 

Caught up reading now, and I don't know, I still don't like it.

Hypothetical:
If Sota were to split the community by allowing different server rulesets, I think I'd prefer if they managed this themselves. This would ensure that alternate ruleset servers had the 'integrity' of an official server, without all of the stuff that goes on on heavily modded freeshards where server admins can hand out items, trivialize or water down content, etc.

In addition, this would keep all revenue (ie add-on store, subscriptions, etc) pointed in the direction of Portalarium and not to some independent server manager.

You say you want there to be a 'fee' to basically get a copy of the game and host your own world, but I think the potential loss of revenue by diversifying the community and essentially 'giving away' customers from the official servers (futher exacerbating the population issue) would have a lot of trickle-down effects - land rush, property ownership, etc. becomes trivial if you can hand these out for nothing on a freeshard. Progression and achievement becomes trivial if you can play on a freeshard where advancement rate is adjusted. Why pay for expensive add on items when they can be had for nothing on the "everything is free" world (for example) if your purpose is simply to have/use/enjoy these items.

Also, I read @Bambino 's post above with what is his ideal ruleset and I mean this with no offense whatsoever to Bambino, as his opinion and what he enjoys are completely valid, but what he describes is a game I would absolutely HATE to play lol. The sort of game I wouldn't even bother downloading due to the pvp ruleset and combat imbalance. That's just my opinion of course, and your idea to open up shards would mean that everyone could go and play Sota or some variation of Sota in their own way with their perfect setup of things. I'd make a server with no PvP at all, I'd put rare resource spawns in the Shardfalls instead that needed cooperation - NOT conflict - to acquire. There would be no RNG in crafting so you could make hypercustomized gear. It would be a complete meritocracy - tenure and amount of time/effort spent on character development would be key. You'd have additional fast travel options, the ability to skip all pointless loadscreens (encounters/sieges) and there would be ride-able cat mounts in a variety of flavours. I bet there's a lot of people who would HATE this, but probably a few who'd want something similar.

So on one hand, sure, it would be great if all the people who aren't happy with Sota how it is now went and played their "own" sota over there, but I think we as a community would be diminished if we lost their input. These people would no longer be spending money to support Portalarium, and incoming new players could be easily redirected to one of the customized servers (like, when people get their friendss to come play, etc.) thus causing a further loss in potential business.

I can already see every thoughtful feedback post being responded to with "if you don't like it come play on xyz server" instead of being fully fleshed out.

I think it would be bad for the game overall.

 

I personally think making more servers is not the answer as it is not like there is any over crowding on the server now when you can play offline and privately.

Maybe I am missing a point somewhere

 

I was under the impression that this would attract players that do not currently play due to historic changes or have never played due to particular game mechanics. There is nothing wrong with staying on the official server if you are content with the current game mechanics. However, I just don't feel that the majority of the potential player-base is on the same page as you active players are. In other words, the player-base is already completely divided. We're also talking about players that walked away with the intention of never playing again. Could it possibly get worse? IMO I don't think so.

EDIT: Is it just me or is there quite a bit of hate coming from this? There is absolutely no grounds for Jamma to be getting told that he is stirring up trouble, being told that he is lieing (which he is not), being accused of being some type outcast for making a viable suggestion that is just as relaveant as everyone else’s. I can’t believe people still post brilliant ideas such as this with the amount of hate going around. Smh. If I am missing something, let me know.

 

The only way this could work is if the initial price was so high that it forced the buyer to do a good job, both in advertising to bring new players to their donation shop, and also with their server in general. The natural order would place the cost of your own server at around $50,000 USD. It's a step up from POT's and golden castles after all.

Of course, for that price, we'd have to be talking about some fairly sophisticated software to aid the new developers in bringing their vision to life, which may or may not be difficult, I don't know. From the quality of the code I would say that this might even be a simple task.

Down the road we may even start to see "Portalarium's trusted advertising firms" or trusted website designers for those who desire to make their own server but aren't savy in those departments.

I am expecting a veritable explosion of MMOs to the point where we will eventually see one MMO for every person on the planet. THAT is what will truly spread out the population of gamers. So why not develop a hub for gamers in this genre to bring them together? Especially if it's not that difficult?

I understand that some here do not believe that freeshards have ever been a benefit to the main servers for which they stem, but that is simply not true. There are many who believe that UO:Forever, which has more people logging on to it than the official servers, is what is keeping the game alive at all. I know for a fact that many people have migrated from Forever to Atlantic as well. The owner of Forever could easily have paid 50k for the shard and the tools and still would be reaping a huge profit, mostly because he is an advertising genius. The mechanics themselves were so brutally bad at the start of the shard, so that just leaves his advertising to claim responsibility for the overall success of the server.

This is the precedent that proves this could work if designed properly. It's fact. People can argue with that and I certainly appreciate their feedback, but that doesn't make them correct. They are probably envisioning just another server that has the same identical map and spawns, and I'm envisioning multiple new servers with new maps and new mobs etc. The works. Endless possibilities under one roof.

Try to envision the circumstance where the idea actually works instead of the one where it doesn't. That's the key to building on any idea.

 

You use false information, assumptions and guesses and claims its "proof" that your idea will work, and at the same time you try to make it sound like you are some kind of visionary and that everyone else is wrong, even thought this has been proven for 20 years that its false. There is not any example where of any "freeserver" anywhere has ever had more players at any given time than the main game, Nor does it do any good for the main game.

" The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "

 

Silly idea that won't happen.