A Statement to Broadsword and the Classic experience

Lokea

Cookie said:

Many players left, live in a lie perpetuated by the remaining minority left on official, while you quite rightly say, the pvpers are outnumbering them by many thousands on unofficial shards.

Official is where the carebears won sadly.

I'm not saying there is not a place for carebears, but UO went overboard, and ditched a majority of their playerbase.

I remember one of the Devs saying at the meet and greet, if there was one thing they could do differently about the past, it would be the Fel/Trammel split - and centring so much of the reward in a risk free environment ever since then. I agree with this. The whole point of UO was lost, and it became a shell of itself.

Some of this is easy to say with hindsight, at the time, they could not tell how it would go, but they were genuinely only listening to 1 set of players. For those who say, but PvM is what players want, no, this is a delusion, for the minority on Official - Yes, for the majority playing UO, No.

To me, it was always obvious they were pandering to the wrong set of players.

First, calling them "carebears" makes you look...not very mature, to be polite.  You can despise them all you want, but UO is still alive here in 2025 because of those "carebears".

Second, as somebody who played Siege when it opened up, and who is getting ready to build another house there after coming back, in regard to what the OP wants, well, Siege is not exactly heavily populated to begin with, and I'm not going to judge the OP too harshly because they are clearly passionate about UO, but I sure do hear a lot of people who complain about old-school PvP who all seem to live on non-Siege shards.  Is Siege perfect? No, of course not, it's too hard for a lot of people and I completely get that, it's hard to make money, it's hard to run around in stuff you know you will lose if you die, you can't sell to NPCs or train with NPCs, you get one character per account, but we will never return to that pre-Trammel time again (and Siege launched pre-Tram, and Runesabre knew what he was doing when he created it).

Third, you heard from a dev saying they regretted the Fel/Tram split, and yet the people who were in management and running UO (or even higher up the ladder above Origin) from that era have discussed about how they had to do something because UO was shedding players who were tired of being PKed. They were getting a very bad rap. It was on all of the websites, in the gaming magazines, in mainstream articles. I had plenty of friends who were leaving UO. The companies who launched MMORPGs after UO made sure to allow for non-PvP play.

UO peaked three years after Tram was added, in mid-2003. Everquest launched in 1999 with heavily-restricted PvP for a reason, and EQ handily beat UO unfortunately.

I'm not judging you Cookie, but when this stuff comes up, and people complain that the "wrong set of players" were pandered to, they are ignoring the obvious: the "wrong set of players" were the vast majority of players, as you yourself have acknowledged, and therefore the devs were in fact catering to the "right set of players".

Finally, a lot of you seem to lose sight of the fact, when you talk about the "point of UO", you're just making up what you think the "point of UO" is, because UO was not supposed to last this long - they planned it to last a few years until they had the sequel out. UO2 was supposed to come out and replace UO. It pains me greatly that UO2 was killed, because so much of what was in it, ended up in WOW, and was claimed to be "ground-breaking" when UO2 was going to do those things years before WOW launched. Instead, EA in typical idiotic EA fashion, got cold feet about dividing the player base or even losing players with UO2 replacing UO. All of the sudden, a codebase that was not supposed to last beyond a few years was forced to become something it originally wasn't meant to be.

And I would even argue that any supposed "point of UO" has long since been lost because people have forgotten the single-player games that UO was based on.

This is more for other people in the thread, but some want to force PvP on people, and dress it up as "UO is supposed to be risk-based, so you should be forced to play this way" when that's not the case at all - go back and look at the advertising for UO - they were literally trotting out stay-at-home moms who were hanging out in their little UO shops making clothes or armor or whatever and having fun little adventures, while ignoring the fact that so many non-gamers who were drawn to UO were getting royally pissed off at being ganked while out mining or gathering hides or whatever. From interviews at the time, they thought the PKers would be kept more in check than they were, and it was killing UO's bottom line.

Cookie

Lokea said:

Cookie said:

Many players left, live in a lie perpetuated by the remaining minority left on official, while you quite rightly say, the pvpers are outnumbering them by many thousands on unofficial shards.

Official is where the carebears won sadly.

I'm not saying there is not a place for carebears, but UO went overboard, and ditched a majority of their playerbase.

I remember one of the Devs saying at the meet and greet, if there was one thing they could do differently about the past, it would be the Fel/Trammel split - and centring so much of the reward in a risk free environment ever since then. I agree with this. The whole point of UO was lost, and it became a shell of itself.

Some of this is easy to say with hindsight, at the time, they could not tell how it would go, but they were genuinely only listening to 1 set of players. For those who say, but PvM is what players want, no, this is a delusion, for the minority on Official - Yes, for the majority playing UO, No.

To me, it was always obvious they were pandering to the wrong set of players.

First, calling them "carebears" makes you look...not very mature, to be polite.  You can despise them all you want, but UO is still alive here in 2025 because of those "carebears".

Second, as somebody who played Siege when it opened up, and who is getting ready to build another house there after coming back, in regard to what the OP wants, well, Siege is not exactly heavily populated to begin with, and I'm not going to judge the OP too harshly because they are clearly passionate about UO, but I sure do hear a lot of people who complain about old-school PvP who all seem to live on non-Siege shards.  Is Siege perfect? No, of course not, it's too hard for a lot of people and I completely get that, it's hard to make money, it's hard to run around in stuff you know you will lose if you die, you can't sell to NPCs or train with NPCs, you get one character per account, but we will never return to that pre-Trammel time again (and Siege launched pre-Tram, and Runesabre knew what he was doing when he created it).

Third, you heard from a dev saying they regretted the Fel/Tram split, and yet the people who were in management and running UO (or even higher up the ladder above Origin) from that era have discussed about how they had to do something because UO was shedding players who were tired of being PKed. They were getting a very bad rap. It was on all of the websites, in the gaming magazines, in mainstream articles. I had plenty of friends who were leaving UO. The companies who launched MMORPGs after UO made sure to allow for non-PvP play.

UO peaked three years after Tram was added, in mid-2003. Everquest launched in 1999 with heavily-restricted PvP for a reason, and EQ handily beat UO unfortunately.

I'm not judging you Cookie, but when this stuff comes up, and people complain that the "wrong set of players" were pandered to, they are ignoring the obvious: the "wrong set of players" were the vast majority of players, as you yourself have acknowledged, and therefore the devs were in fact catering to the "right set of players".

Finally, a lot of you seem to lose sight of the fact, when you talk about the "point of UO", you're just making up what you think the "point of UO" is, because UO was not supposed to last this long - they planned it to last a few years until they had the sequel out. UO2 was supposed to come out and replace UO. It pains me greatly that UO2 was killed, because so much of what was in it, ended up in WOW, and was claimed to be "ground-breaking" when UO2 was going to do those things years before WOW launched. Instead, EA in typical idiotic EA fashion, got cold feet about dividing the player base or even losing players with UO2 replacing UO. All of the sudden, a codebase that was not supposed to last beyond a few years was forced to become something it originally wasn't meant to be.

And I would even argue that any supposed "point of UO" has long since been lost because people have forgotten the single-player games that UO was based on.

This is more for other people in the thread, but some want to force PvP on people, and dress it up as "UO is supposed to be risk-based, so you should be forced to play this way" when that's not the case at all - go back and look at the advertising for UO - they were literally trotting out stay-at-home moms who were hanging out in their little UO shops making clothes or armor or whatever and having fun little adventures, while ignoring the fact that so many non-gamers who were drawn to UO were getting royally pissed off at being ganked while out mining or gathering hides or whatever. From interviews at the time, they thought the PKers would be kept more in check than they were, and it was killing UO's bottom line.

Sometimes people are so wrong, there is nothing I can say.

Carebears as a description works fine, you understand what I mean, you cannot deny the world, and UO went that way, and it has been an unmitigated disaster listening to these people all round. They get something, then never stop wanting it easier. Instead of learning, playing smarter, adapting.

Siege is always a poor example, no need to keep bringing it into it. It is a great shard, it is even more hardcore than the original UO used to be - due to a different rule system, in the evolving game.

I didn't say they regretted the split, I said the way it was done. Effectively removing all risk and reward, placing everything in Trammel, it was obvious the whole population would move to where it was easier, and it wiped the community aspect of UO. Reliance on other players etc. Everyone didn't go to Trammel because it was popular, they went there, because everything was free and given to them on a plate. Which ruined the entire concept of the game. Of any game tbh.

The point of UO, was it was a sandbox, it had a feel no other game had. You were meant to earn your way. That is where fulfilment comes in.

No need to force pvp on everyone, this is again victim mentality, risk vs reward does not have to be pvp. It can be dying in pvm, and losing your suit, or what you have earned. It can be introducing the very real concept of failure. Which cannot happen in Trammel.

Edit. I logged off, turned the pc off, and went to bed, then I thought of the next bit I wanted to add.

PvPers added in the concept of failure. This meant the concept of success was so much more real, so much more earned, and therefore more emotionally fulfilling.
In Trammel, with Insurance, power creep, sampires etc, there is no concept of failure - this is carebear mentality. Allow that to continue and It all gets boring. 

Now Kyronix knows there has to be a concept of failure, and a concept of earning, and achieving - so how does he now achieve this in an environment where failure is impossible?
And I hope he understands the point I am trying to make here - and this is where I believe I have been ideologically different.

He achieves it by going hard on the concept of RNG. You can work your arse off, you can put the hours in, you can do everything right, and Luck/RNG can still bring about failure. So these days, no-one moans about PK's, but they moan about RNG, or Luck, because that is the failure mechanism that has been built in to give players that feeling of achievement.

But is that achievement? Players instead get frustrated because they have put the effort in to earn  something and feel they deserve it, but not been able to get it? Is that fair?
It's basically a case, of pick a side. Fulfilment by earning vs a player (using your brains), or fulfilment by earning vs RNG. Is fulfilment earning vs RNG really earning something? Or just gambling.

The reason it is clever, is no-one is blaming the PK's anymore, they are not blaming people... they are blaming an invisible system. Having said that, No, they are often blaming the Devs, so poor Kyronix, in taking the blame away from the PK's, put the entire blame game of players frustrations onto his shoulders re (supposed) poor systems, perceived/or real faulty RNG etc - because now, it is the systems not delivering what players want, or feel they earned. And therefore.... players STILL quit, because of perceived injustice and frustration, with the systems, and the Devs now.

If I were Kyronix, I would not have been such a martyr.
I would have let the sandbox do its job, the sandbox was able to deliver balance.

I'm not going to judge you either, because most of your posts seem very sensible, I'm just going to assume you fell for the carebear propaganda.

CovenantX

Kyronix said:

There are generalities you mention related to the "classic risk vs reward" experience but when Siege Perilous is brought into the conversation there is apparently something else missing from it to "scratch your itch"...what mechanics are you looking for?  

   Siege seems to have been marketed as a 'classic' shard mostly because of its "Fel Only" ruleset.

   the ruleset is great.    it's the other restrictions and the emphasis on loot that make siege far less appealing anymore.

  1) Limited to one character per account.   while I believe that most players in UO today, probably don't really care about this much, cause most of us have multiple accounts. -but for newer players and those who only have one account, it's difficult to even begin.

 2) The skill gain system RoT. 

3) Magery>Gate Travel is the only source of 'fast travel' to any template, so if you're not a mage, have fun running everywhere.

4) AoS Loot / no insurance...

AtomicBetty said:

For me I don't play Siege because the shard uses AOS properties and without insurance there it's just to much of a hassle to replace pieces if lost. A more classic itemization without insurance would appeal as you don't need to mix and match pieces to get optimal stats.

   pretty much that.

Cookie

I just want to add a correction to my previous post.
I believe it was Messana who took the brunt of players frustrations, not Kyronix, as she was in charge for most of the period.
I believe I have now just fully explained why, psychologically.
In effect, she put it on herself, when she did not need to.
And this is what happens, when you pander to carebears.

Lokea

Cookie said:

No need to force pvp on everyone, this is again victim mentality, risk vs reward does not have to be pvp. It can be dying in pvm, and losing your suit, or what you have earned. It can be introducing the very real concept of failure. Which cannot happen in Trammel.
...
PvPers added in the concept of failure. This meant the concept of success was so much more real, so much more earned, and therefore more emotionally fulfilling.

You talk about "risk vs reward".

There was no risk for a group of PKers who were jumping miners and lumberjacks and people who just wanted to run around in a virtual world and craft and do non-combat things, there was only rewards for valuable ingots and wood and armor/weapons made by the crafters. Even when they would occasionally lose, they would easily make it up with just one decent kill of a miner or lumberjack.

There was no reward for a miner or lumberjack or craftsperson who had just spent a few hours mining or chopping trees or trying to get stuff to town to sell it, only to lose everything to PKers (sometimes simply because they were on a faster connection). There was only "I just spent X amount of my valuable time getting ore or lumber or making armor to sell to other players and I lost everything including my tools, why am I paying for this and why should I login again tomorrow and risk the same thing when my only reward is a corpse, trash-talking from the PKers, and lost time?"

And if you talk about UO being unique among games, don't forget that a part of the marketing was targeted at people who had no desire to PvP. I wish you would go back and look at the marketing and positive media coverage, because it was a whole lot of "I'm not into all of that swords and sorcery stuff, I just really like the community, and I like having my own little house and making stuff."

These people do not hang around long when they start losing the stuff they love about the game, and these people are allowed to love the game just as much as you do.

Also, don't forget that when UO launched, personal computers that could run it well were not ubiquitous, nor were fast internet connections, and the Ultima games had been for nearly 20 years, which means lot of early players were in their 20s/30s/40s and didn't have vast amounts of free time to make up when they lost hours of work in the game.

Trammel was a direct response to players getting ganked and dry-looted and getting PKed outside of their own homes and losing a lot of time they had invested in whatever they were doing. You can call them carebears just like people did over 25 years ago, but at the end of the day, they spoke with their wallets.  UO hit its success well after Tram (and even in the wake of Everquest doing massive numbers).

Lokea

@Cookie I know we both agree on a lot of things, and that UO was never supposed to become what it became (it wasn't supposed to last 30 months, let along nearly 30 years), but maybe that's the nature of a sandbox - to evolve over time into something completely different than it was.

MacroPlanet

Lokea said:

Cookie said:

No need to force pvp on everyone, this is again victim mentality, risk vs reward does not have to be pvp. It can be dying in pvm, and losing your suit, or what you have earned. It can be introducing the very real concept of failure. Which cannot happen in Trammel.
...
PvPers added in the concept of failure. This meant the concept of success was so much more real, so much more earned, and therefore more emotionally fulfilling.

You talk about "risk vs reward".

There was no risk for a group of PKers who were jumping miners and lumberjacks and people who just wanted to run around in a virtual world and craft and do non-combat things, there was only rewards for valuable ingots and wood and armor/weapons made by the crafters. Even when they would occasionally lose, they would easily make it up with just one decent kill of a miner or lumberjack.

There was no reward for a miner or lumberjack or craftsperson who had just spent a few hours mining or chopping trees or trying to get stuff to town to sell it, only to lose everything to PKers (sometimes simply because they were on a faster connection). There was only "I just spent X amount of my valuable time getting ore or lumber or making armor to sell to other players and I lost everything including my tools, why am I paying for this and why should I login again tomorrow and risk the same thing when my only reward is a corpse, trash-talking from the PKers, and lost time?"

And if you talk about UO being unique among games, don't forget that a part of the marketing was targeted at people who had no desire to PvP. I wish you would go back and look at the marketing and positive media coverage, because it was a whole lot of "I'm not into all of that swords and sorcery stuff, I just really like the community, and I like having my own little house and making stuff."

These people do not hang around long when they start losing the stuff they love about the game, and these people are allowed to love the game just as much as you do.

Also, don't forget that when UO launched, personal computers that could run it well were not ubiquitous, nor were fast internet connections, and the Ultima games had been for nearly 20 years, which means lot of early players were in their 20s/30s/40s and didn't have vast amounts of free time to make up when they lost hours of work in the game.

Trammel was a direct response to players getting ganked and dry-looted and getting PKed outside of their own homes and losing a lot of time they had invested in whatever they were doing. You can call them carebears just like people did over 25 years ago, but at the end of the day, they spoke with their wallets.  UO hit its success well after Tram (and even in the wake of Everquest doing massive numbers).

You’re not wrong about how it felt for a lot of players back then. Plenty of people got burned mining, crafting, or just exploring and ran into  PK squads who saw them as easy loot. We all were a target at some point. That frustration is valid. But here’s the thing: we’re not asking to repeat 1998’s mistakes, we’re saying we can learn from them.

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned exactly this: with what we know now, there are smarter ways to reintroduce a Felucca-only world without letting it spiral into a grief-fest.

Just a few examples I threw out earlier below:

• Enhanced consequences for reds — Not just the old “guard zone = death” system, but harsher penalties. Maybe reds can’t use public banks, can’t access key vendors, or accumulate bounties that players can claim.
• Bounty or justice systems — Imagine if every time a PK dry-loots a miner, a portion of that loot contributes to a bounty. Now you’ve got PvPers hunting PvPers. The economy of justice becomes player-driven again.
• New player protection — Instead of giving everyone a bubble or safe facet, we create smart starting areas (like a Shelter Island concept) where newbies can skill up, make a little gold, and learn the ropes before stepping into the deep end.
• Hotspot-based PvP — Spawn high-value content in risky areas to pull PvPers to those zones, creating predictable risk zones, while other areas stay less hostile.
• *edit* Safe-Dungeon Rotation — a feature in other shards like a safety dungeon rotation. Each week a new dungeon is highlighted for players to roam without the fear of being PK’d.
• *edit* Enhanced Player Detection Skill — Give Blue characters a free skill where Red player detection is greatly enhanced and can pin-point if a Red is nearby. Better than the original detection skill.

All of this creates a world that’s dangerous but manageable. You keep that core UO tension where a trip to town isn’t just a formality, but you don’t shove new or casual players straight into the meat grinder. That’s where the original game failed, and that’s exactly the kind of thing we can fix now.

No one is dismissing the “peaceful” players who love UO for the community, the housing, the crafting. I’m one of them. I hardly veered join in in PKing, but i like the risks that come with it. Each login felt different than the last. I’m saying those people also thrived in the old game when risk was shared, but it needs proper guardrails. If the goal is to bring back a “classic” experience, it needs the unpredictability and the lessons learned since then.

Trammel was a reaction. But it wasn’t the only possible solution. It was just the only one they had at the time. With better tools and modern design, we could absolutely strike a balance that protects players from being stomped repeatedly while still letting the world feel alive and untamed.

This isn’t about nostalgia for the sake of it. It’s about bringing back the freedom and agency that made UO stand out, while acknowledging the ways it broke down and doing better this time.

*edit* I guess I’m trying to say is that there are absolutely ways to reintroduce classic in a way that makes more sense in 2025. We have decades of information to go on and know now what works and what doesn’t. 

There’s just simply no way you can deny that there are an even amount of people in the free shard world that would jump at an official classic Ultima online. They are there and they are real.

KroDuK

I won't gonna lie.. after Mariah job & reading this post.. i've lost all hope and stop the billing on my accounts.

I would have need the support of 4 or 5 players; legit with brain power.. won't happen in this community on this forum.. Enjoy New Heresy; Theme Park Legacy and those temp bribe events for bots... u won't get anything better than that.


I'll come back when I can manage to one man army this B; to stream and make a few vid on UO to show how great is UO under this Mesanna corporate culture in 2025 for a legit PvP OW lover, as soon I have the time and to give EA the solutions. Till then enjoy..

We could have SO MUCH MORE with so MUCH LESS DEV WORK.. those temporary bribe event are just a way to secure their job.. while making UO worst with copy pasta weapon with different special moves.. 95% of the content is dead and with the power creep bribe they been feeding bots, they just making it worst.. as for NL, it clrealy failed to deliver what it was promise, it's just gonna be another bribe/ extraction shard.. a part of the bad corporate culture.

Most of the actual dev team should be move on DAoC or that Star Wars MMO, an actual theme park.. after we chop the head. all we need is 3 person to make UO a great sandbox again; Cerebro, Cojones y Talento... but not with that culture.


PS: a classic shard should be played on CC and only CC. This is the most important aspect of a "classic" UO, imo... y'all been missing the obvious; with your "siege perilous" #2 idea 
We having a TC #2 in NL.. and i'm reading ideas for a siege perilous #2.. as a "classic UO" like what??

PS2: if they do a siege perilous #2 make it for RP users.. like with mayor.. jail system.. all the good stuff for nerds. but this is not what a classic UO shard should be. the Classic UO shard should be UO at it's more popular played on CC.. while addressing the problems that was ignore back then to double down on them.

SA was great but it brang a tonsss of problem.. bring back magic finding without the 30 mods attach to an items.. the obvious stuff u know.. like those new potions, apples, etc etc.. all that heresy must be deleted.. if u want to remove curse.. bring a paladin with you; MMO!.. bring back jousting.. even today ~22 yrs later.. Necromancy still look to be unfinish.. so much easy stuff to address #balance..  and I maintain the way the game is today.. NL should aspire to be a hardcore shard (1 life; a hybrid of roguelite and hack and slash for temporary high octane events or leaderboard stuff, while being playable on mobile), anyway.

Have a good one.

Cookie

MacroPlanet said:

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned exactly this: with what we know now, there are smarter ways to reintroduce a Felucca-only world without letting it spiral into a grief-fest.

All of this creates a world that’s dangerous but manageable. You keep that core UO tension where a trip to town isn’t just a formality, but you don’t shove new or casual players straight into the meat grinder. That’s where the original game failed, and that’s exactly the kind of thing we can fix now.

No one is dismissing the “peaceful” players who love UO for the community, the housing, the crafting. I’m one of them. I hardly veered join in in PKing, but i like the risks that come with it. Each login felt different than the last. I’m saying those people also thrived in the old game when risk was shared, but it needs proper guardrails. If the goal is to bring back a “classic” experience, it needs the unpredictability and the lessons learned since then.

Trammel was a reaction. But it wasn’t the only possible solution. It was just the only one they had at the time. With better tools and modern design, we could absolutely strike a balance that protects players from being stomped repeatedly while still letting the world feel alive and untamed.

This isn’t about nostalgia for the sake of it. It’s about bringing back the freedom and agency that made UO stand out, while acknowledging the ways it broke down and doing better this time.

*edit* I guess I’m trying to say is that there are absolutely ways to reintroduce classic in a way that makes more sense in 2025. We have decades of information to go on and know now what works and what doesn’t. 

There’s just simply no way you can deny that there are an even amount of people in the free shard world that would jump at an official classic Ultima online. They are there and they are real.

I'm completely agreeing with your analysis of the situation.
I edited your suggestions out to make the post shorter.

The only area I disagree with you, Is you wish to go back and create another clean original style shard to achieve all of this, (and so does Kroduk, and so do many players).

Whereas I am saying, we are where we are, I think your suggestion in itself is too much, too risky, will split the playerbase more. I am saying - take it from where we are right now - there is a lot of good stuff where we are right now - players are still finding ways to play and enjoy themselves.
I am saying, change the Vision, and with that changed Vision, implement new stuff slightly differently, towards a new vision.

Cookie

Lokea said:

Cookie said:

No need to force pvp on everyone, this is again victim mentality, risk vs reward does not have to be pvp. It can be dying in pvm, and losing your suit, or what you have earned. It can be introducing the very real concept of failure. Which cannot happen in Trammel.
...
PvPers added in the concept of failure. This meant the concept of success was so much more real, so much more earned, and therefore more emotionally fulfilling.

You talk about "risk vs reward".

There was no risk for a group of PKers who were jumping miners and lumberjacks and people who just wanted to run around in a virtual world and craft and do non-combat things, there was only rewards for valuable ingots and wood and armor/weapons made by the crafters. Even when they would occasionally lose, they would easily make it up with just one decent kill of a miner or lumberjack.

There was no reward for a miner or lumberjack or craftsperson who had just spent a few hours mining or chopping trees or trying to get stuff to town to sell it, only to lose everything to PKers (sometimes simply because they were on a faster connection). There was only "I just spent X amount of my valuable time getting ore or lumber or making armor to sell to other players and I lost everything including my tools, why am I paying for this and why should I login again tomorrow and risk the same thing when my only reward is a corpse, trash-talking from the PKers, and lost time?"

And if you talk about UO being unique among games, don't forget that a part of the marketing was targeted at people who had no desire to PvP. I wish you would go back and look at the marketing and positive media coverage, because it was a whole lot of "I'm not into all of that swords and sorcery stuff, I just really like the community, and I like having my own little house and making stuff."

These people do not hang around long when they start losing the stuff they love about the game, and these people are allowed to love the game just as much as you do.

Also, don't forget that when UO launched, personal computers that could run it well were not ubiquitous, nor were fast internet connections, and the Ultima games had been for nearly 20 years, which means lot of early players were in their 20s/30s/40s and didn't have vast amounts of free time to make up when they lost hours of work in the game.

Trammel was a direct response to players getting ganked and dry-looted and getting PKed outside of their own homes and losing a lot of time they had invested in whatever they were doing. You can call them carebears just like people did over 25 years ago, but at the end of the day, they spoke with their wallets.  UO hit its success well after Tram (and even in the wake of Everquest doing massive numbers).

There was no risk for a group of PKers
There is risk to PKers if those miners are protected.
In real life, towns and villages evolved for a reason, for protection from the roaming brigands, for the social aspect, humans are social creatures mostly. UO was exactly the same, we had towns and villages, we had crafters, we had traders, we had fighters, all in 1 Town, all acting as a community.

That was how the game was. That is how my guild is, right now, one of the few left operating like this, and we are seriously successful, and enjoying ourselves. We all have different skills and abilities, and we help each other. We have pvmers, crafters, house deco people, rare collectors, traders, pvpers etc.
Because this is my Vision, this is my belief, I want all these different people around me, experts in their own areas.

There was no reward for a miner or lumberjack or craftsperson who had just spent a few hours mining or chopping trees 
You know the answer here as well as I do. The answer was to play smarter, bring those logs in more regularly.

I just really like the community, and I like having my own little house and making stuff."
It existed in the player towns. It existed in the main towns like Britain, around the Blacksmiths - SO much more than it does now - would you agree?

Also, don't forget that when UO launched, personal computers that could run it well were not ubiquitous, nor were fast internet connections, and the Ultima games had been for nearly 20 years, which means lot of early players were in their 20s/30s/40s and didn't have vast amounts of free time to make up when they lost hours of work in the game.
I do not forget - this is why UO actually took off when it did - when the majority of the public finally got the technology to play UO better, and therefore more dived in - NOT because of Trammel, which coincidentally happened at the same time as technology caught up with UO.
Do you think the whole world heard about Trammel, and this amazing response to PK's and so decided to dive into UO?
Or was it the whole world had just achieved improved Tech, and were now able to play this really cool game UO? (and Trammel is just where it happened to be at that stage, poor guys).
This is the carebear myth - misinterpreting data.

Trammel was a direct response
Yes it was, they did their best, they got it a bit wrong, it was overkill.
They could have created Trammel - and put absolutely no loot in Trammel, had it as a housing area. People could live in their houses, walk around freely, socialise, all these thing you say they like doing.  They could train there. But why give them absolutely free loot, and therefore dull the game for a huge majority?

MacroPlanet

Cookie said:

MacroPlanet said:

In one of my earlier posts, I mentioned exactly this: with what we know now, there are smarter ways to reintroduce a Felucca-only world without letting it spiral into a grief-fest.

All of this creates a world that’s dangerous but manageable. You keep that core UO tension where a trip to town isn’t just a formality, but you don’t shove new or casual players straight into the meat grinder. That’s where the original game failed, and that’s exactly the kind of thing we can fix now.

No one is dismissing the “peaceful” players who love UO for the community, the housing, the crafting. I’m one of them. I hardly veered join in in PKing, but i like the risks that come with it. Each login felt different than the last. I’m saying those people also thrived in the old game when risk was shared, but it needs proper guardrails. If the goal is to bring back a “classic” experience, it needs the unpredictability and the lessons learned since then.

Trammel was a reaction. But it wasn’t the only possible solution. It was just the only one they had at the time. With better tools and modern design, we could absolutely strike a balance that protects players from being stomped repeatedly while still letting the world feel alive and untamed.

This isn’t about nostalgia for the sake of it. It’s about bringing back the freedom and agency that made UO stand out, while acknowledging the ways it broke down and doing better this time.

*edit* I guess I’m trying to say is that there are absolutely ways to reintroduce classic in a way that makes more sense in 2025. We have decades of information to go on and know now what works and what doesn’t. 

There’s just simply no way you can deny that there are an even amount of people in the free shard world that would jump at an official classic Ultima online. They are there and they are real.

I'm completely agreeing with your analysis of the situation.
I edited your suggestions out to make the post shorter.

The only area I disagree with you, Is you wish to go back and create another clean original style shard to achieve all of this, (and so does Kroduk, and so do many players).

Whereas I am saying, we are where we are, I think your suggestion in itself is too much, too risky, will split the playerbase more. I am saying - take it from where we are right now - there is a lot of good stuff where we are right now - players are still finding ways to play and enjoy themselves.
I am saying, change the Vision, and with that changed Vision, implement new stuff slightly differently, towards a new vision.

The vision change in itself makes sense. However, it would never be enough to bring back the players that left UO but still play UO. The ideas I was playing with was bringing those player back under the Broadsword umbrella (aka with Blizzard and Daybreaks classic version of their game). I understand your concern about splitting the community even further and that’s a real concern for the current player base.

Your idea is a great one, I too would love to see a vision change to the current live shards. But I think it would mostly only impact those that currently play instead of bringing in the old/new blood players.

Unless Broadsword was willing to go all-in on a major overhaul like fully embracing the classic systems again, reintroducing real consequences, making stealing and snooping viable, restoring the weight behind player interaction (which was a huge thing in the original game) it’s probably not going to move the needle much in terms of reviving the old-school crowd. And honestly, doing that kind of overhaul to the live game would probably upset the current playerbase more than anything. A lot of them play because the game evolved away from that style since Tram and AOS.

So that’s the conundrum.

The players who want the classic feel aren’t on the official servers anymore, and the players who are here likely prefer the direction the game has gone. That’s why many of us feel the only real solution is to have a separate, dedicated classic shard that exists alongside the modern ones that way so both groups can have the game they love without stepping on each other’s toes.

Again, I really do see your point about splitting the community even further  My hope would be that it would only bring more people together.

Lokea

Cookie said:
There was no risk for a group of PKers
There is risk to PKers if those miners are protected.
In real life, towns and villages evolved for a reason, for protection from the roaming brigands, for the social aspect, humans are social creatures mostly. UO was exactly the same, we had towns and villages, we had crafters, we had traders, we had fighters, all in 1 Town, all acting as a community.
.....

That's nice that it worked out for you, that you had friends playing at the exact time you needed them.  But that was not reality for a lot of people, and I know you remember all of the websites chronicling those folks getting ganked and dry-looted. Look, I'm glad you had great experiences, but man, a heckuva lot of people did not have that experience, and a lot of them left and never came back, which is a huge reason why UO struggled to find traction at times in those first 5-6 years while first EQ and then WOW took off (and both of those games looked like garbage in the early years).

Trammel was a direct response
Yes it was, they did their best, they got it a bit wrong, it was overkill.
They could have created Trammel - and put absolutely no loot in Trammel, had it as a housing area. People could live in their houses, walk around freely, socialise, all these thing you say they like doing.  They could train there. But why give them absolutely free loot, and therefore dull the game for a huge majority?

It sounds like you want to force people to play a certain way, that they have to risk losing the resources they had gathered, and therefore their valuable time, because you believed they should only be able to gather those resources in a non-consensual PvP area. 

Not really much of a sandbox is it? Kind of the opposite in fact.

Lokea

MacroPlanet said:

The vision change in itself makes sense. However, it would never be enough to bring back the players that left UO but still play UO. The ideas I was playing with was bringing those player back under the Broadsword umbrella (aka with Blizzard and Daybreaks classic version of their game). I understand your concern about splitting the community even further and that’s a real concern for the current player base.

Your idea is a great one, I too would love to see a vision change to the current live shards. But I think it would mostly only impact those that currently play instead of bringing in the old/new blood players.

Unless Broadsword was willing to go all-in on a major overhaul like fully embracing the classic systems again, reintroducing real consequences, making stealing and snooping viable, restoring the weight behind player interaction (which was a huge thing in the original game) it’s probably not going to move the needle much in terms of reviving the old-school crowd. And honestly, doing that kind of overhaul to the live game would probably upset the current playerbase more than anything. A lot of them play because the game evolved away from that style since Tram and AOS.

So that’s the conundrum.

The players who want the classic feel aren’t on the official servers anymore, and the players who are here likely prefer the direction the game has gone. That’s why many of us feel the only real solution is to have a separate, dedicated classic shard that exists alongside the modern ones that way so both groups can have the game they love without stepping on each other’s toes.

Again, I really do see your point about splitting the community even further  My hope would be that it would only bring more people together.

I'm with @Cookie you have to be careful about splitting the current playerbase. I really only played Siege because of a few friends who did, and it was not my main shard, so I was not (and am not) putting my full playing time into it, but I'd be worried about such a shard splitting anybody away from Siege. It's not that their characters and houses would disappear overnight from Siege, it's that activity would disappear. 

And as you rightly point out, you can't force current players to go to a new (or rather old) system because that would end UO as we know it. We can compare housing numbers on the non-Atlantic shards in terms of Tram/Fel and see where people want to play or at least live the most. I'm putting together a map of castles, keeps and towers in Tram/Fel, and I'm going to be curious to see what the numbers are when I finish, but that's for a future thread. 

Even the non-official shards have their limits. I know somebody in-game that came back a few months before I did this year (or probably last December, I know he did the holiday events), that I met while sailing around last week and doing a bunch of the HS stuff I never did before.  He played on the...largest third-party non-Broadsword shard that shall not be named, and he completely left because he grew to despise it - he wanted to spend most of his time doing ocean content (fishing, pirating, etc.), and he found himself constantly getting hammered by 5, 6, 7, even 9 or 10 boats and getting PKed.  One dude getting killed by practically a small fleet of boats and they weren't getting much out of him (he would offload valuable stuff as soon as he got it), yet they wouldn't stop.  He was told multiple times that he could join one of the sailing groups or whatever, or he could spend his days getting jumped and killed. It wasn't PvP, it was a large group/guild jumping solo players and telling them to join up or else. Now that's anecdotal and one person's experience, and it's possible he tangled with one of these groups and pissed them off, but whatever happened, it made him go from playing a free shard (and official) to only paid shards over the past few months and not look back.

With all of that said, I would be interested in a Broadsword-run "classic" shard, but I just don't think we have enough devs right now. I have an opinion that the New Legacy stuff is at least a partial rewrite of parts of UO's codebase, and if true, it'll be a while before the devs have the time to even think about another shard, but at the same time, it's possible a rewrite (partial or otherwise) could make it easier.

Lokea

If you had a "classic" shard, I just don't know where the players would come from. It's not going to be the majority of current players who are happy where they are at, it's not (hopefully) going to be Siege players.  Former players?

There is another aspect that has to be mentioned - there are players who play the third-party shards, who do so simply because they are free, and I think we probably underestimate their numbers.

And yet another aspect is that a lot of former players aren't coming back for anything short of a graphics overhaul. They just aren't.  Many left for Everquest (Neverquest for the olds like me) or WOW and never looked back, and now they have things like Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls, etc.

And I don't mean a graphics overhaul like make it a 3D style like FFXIV or WOW/first-person, but something where we can zoom in on a high-resolution display and see a lot of details (maybe similar to Diablo, while keeping UO's unique perspective).

edit: hundreds of thousands of people tried UO at some point since 1997.  Even combined, the official and the third-party shards today are a fraction of the number of people who tried it at some point.  I think to get those people back, you have to figure out why they left.

 Or you have to package UO for a new generation, who has grown up on Minecraft, and various Japanese (and non-Japanese) pixel-based games (smartphone/tablet app stores are full of such games) and who still play them, and therefore wouldn’t turn up their noses at UO’s graphics.  I think this has more potential than trying to win back former players - once a player has left and later come back, it’s very easy for them to leave again.  

Find the first-time players who would see UO the way many saw it 20-25 years ago.  I really think there is an untapped market of people who like graphics similar to UO’s and who would love the housing and crafting systems.

Cookie

Lokea said:

It sounds like you want to force people to play a certain way,

Not really much of a sandbox is it? Kind of the opposite in fact.

It sounds like you want a single player game, which is pretty much what you have achieved.
Good for you.
Again, I would argue, this was not the point of UO.

Lokea

Cookie said:

Lokea said:

It sounds like you want to force people to play a certain way,

Not really much of a sandbox is it? Kind of the opposite in fact.

It sounds like you want a single player game, which is pretty much what you have achieved.
Good for you.
Again, I would argue, this was not the point of UO.

Nah, I spent too much time and money getting friends, family, and co-workers to play, and I played all of the single-player Ultima games.  I’m good.

If you travel back to 1996-1997 and ask everybody involved what the point of UO was, you’d have almost as many different answers as people you asked.

But if you are so concerned about risk and reward, can I ask what facet your home(s) are on and where you spend the majority of your time gathering resources and doing non-combat stuff?  And do you have at least one character on Siege that you’ve played regularly at some point?

Cookie

Lokea said:

Cookie said:

Lokea said:

It sounds like you want to force people to play a certain way,

Not really much of a sandbox is it? Kind of the opposite in fact.

It sounds like you want a single player game, which is pretty much what you have achieved.
Good for you.
Again, I would argue, this was not the point of UO.

Nah, I spent too much time and money getting friends, family, and co-workers to play, and I played all of the single-player Ultima games.  I’m good.

If you travel back to 1996-1997 and ask everybody involved what the point of UO was, you’d have almost as many different answers as people you asked.

But if you are so concerned about risk and reward, can I ask what facet your home(s) are on and where you spend the majority of your time gathering resources and doing non-combat stuff?  And do you have at least one character on Siege that you’ve played regularly at some point?

I play Europa Felucca predominantly.
I hate going to Trammel to be fair, and am often disappointed when they do events in Trammel.

I did have a character on Siege also.
Ultimately, I got bored of the skill gain system, that allowed 0.1 per day.
I find the rules there, even more harsh than original UO, as in original UO, we were losing self crafted sets, here you are losing artifacts that take a hell of a lot of play to get.

MacroPlanet

Lokea said:

And as you rightly point out, you can't force current players to go to a new (or rather old) system because that would end UO as we know it. We can compare housing numbers on the non-Atlantic shards in terms of Tram/Fel and see where people want to play or at least live the most. I'm putting together a map of castles, keeps and towers in Tram/Fel, and I'm going to be curious to see what the numbers are when I finish, but that's for a future thread. 

Even the non-official shards have their limits. I know somebody in-game that came back a few months before I did this year (or probably last December, I know he did the holiday events), that I met while sailing around last week and doing a bunch of the HS stuff I never did before.  He played on the...largest third-party non-Broadsword shard that shall not be named, and he completely left because he grew to despise it - he wanted to spend most of his time doing ocean content (fishing, pirating, etc.), and he found himself constantly getting hammered by 5, 6, 7, even 9 or 10 boats and getting PKed.  One dude getting killed by practically a small fleet of boats and they weren't getting much out of him (he would offload valuable stuff as soon as he got it), yet they wouldn't stop.  He was told multiple times that he could join one of the sailing groups or whatever, or he could spend his days getting jumped and killed. It wasn't PvP, it was a large group/guild jumping solo players and telling them to join up or else. Now that's anecdotal and one person's experience, and it's possible he tangled with one of these groups and pissed them off, but whatever happened, it made him go from playing a free shard (and official) to only paid shards over the past few months and not look back.

With all of that said, I would be interested in a Broadsword-run "classic" shard, but I just don't think we have enough devs right now. I have an opinion that the New Legacy stuff is at least a partial rewrite of parts of UO's codebase, and if true, it'll be a while before the devs have the time to even think about another shard, but at the same time, it's possible a rewrite (partial or otherwise) could make it easier.

I would actually be really interested in your findings too. I don’t do a lot of exploration in Tram, but in Felucca on Napa Valley there’s quite a few castles and keeps up still — fully decorated, too. It seems that people still enjoy Fel (at least living there). 

As for your buddy and the boating experience, it’s interesting that you bring that up because I recently just saw a post from the admin on cancelling a boating expansion because of issues like this. 

Honestly, I don’t really touch free-shards for several reasons. One being I’ve been burned too many times on shards shutting down out of no-where; or admins becoming power hungry or have favorites that they treat better than others. Official has been my…official home to UO for 5 years now. It’s just an overall better experience for me, feels more like home. 

I just wish we had a true official classic experience and I think it would be great for the game, honestly. But I do understand everyone’s reasoning against it. Doesn’t mean I’ll give up pushing the idea.

Grimbeard

Cookie said:

Lokea said:

Cookie said:

Lokea said:

It sounds like you want to force people to play a certain way,

Not really much of a sandbox is it? Kind of the opposite in fact.

It sounds like you want a single player game, which is pretty much what you have achieved.
Good for you.
Again, I would argue, this was not the point of UO.

Nah, I spent too much time and money getting friends, family, and co-workers to play, and I played all of the single-player Ultima games.  I’m good.

If you travel back to 1996-1997 and ask everybody involved what the point of UO was, you’d have almost as many different answers as people you asked.

But if you are so concerned about risk and reward, can I ask what facet your home(s) are on and where you spend the majority of your time gathering resources and doing non-combat stuff?  And do you have at least one character on Siege that you’ve played regularly at some point?

I play Europa Felucca predominantly.
I hate going to Trammel to be fair, and am often disappointed when they do events in Trammel.

I did have a character on Siege also.
Ultimately, I got bored of the skill gain system, that allowed 0.1 per day.
I find the rules there, even more harsh than original UO, as in original UO, we were losing self crafted sets, here you are losing artifacts that take a hell of a lot of play to get.

Even if you only got 0.1 a day your character would have been done 5 years ago...

Cookie

Grimbeard said:

Even if you only got 0.1 a day your character would have been done 5 years ago...

As I said, I got bored with the lack of progression.
I'm an endgame player, I do not want skilling to take forever.
I've done it a million times, for almost every skill, I'm over that now.

MacroPlanet

Lokea said:

If you had a "classic" shard, I just don't know where the players would come from. It's not going to be the majority of current players who are happy where they are at, it's not (hopefully) going to be Siege players.  Former players?

Find the first-time players who would see UO the way many saw it 20-25 years ago.  I really think there is an untapped market of people who like graphics similar to UO’s and who would love the housing and crafting systems.

That’s kind of my point of this entire post. It’s not to please the current player-base. Obviously we’re here for the long haul. It to bring in those players that left official for the more classic experiences on these free-shards. At one point most of these people were official UO players. One free-shard—that really large one—easily has around 3,500 people playing on any given night. Mix in the hundreds of other free-shards and you probably have anywhere from 5,000-8,000 UO players that are untapped. Let alone the random younger players that heard of UO, but never played it. 

On the subreddit we’ll get a weekly post that comes up (sometimes multiple times a week) asking where to get started with UO and how to play. There’s a handful of us there that try to push them to the official game, but it’s usually outvoted by the big free one. It has those modern features they’re looking for, QoL features and it has that old school pre-tram vibe.

In fact I think any person that plays ‘survival’ games would probably really enjoy playing UO…classic UO that is. 

So yeah, I know I sound like a broken record but I truly do believe deep down that UO could have that renaissance again like other older MMO’s have. The audience is there, like you stated. It just needs those QoL features and a true classic experience with some tweaks so it’s not an absolute gank-fest like the old dread days.