Is now a good time to talk about UO store shard shields?

quickblade

The game need insanely high gold sinks in some way, economy is broken on all shards but siege perilous

JackFlashUk

Smoot said:

ive thought this for a while.  any other game would have shard consolidations by now, UO cant because of the unique situation with housing.  players must rely on transfers.

that being said, i think they shouldnt be cheap.  id say $75 - $100 would be a pricepoint where people would buy them, but it would still make financial sense.  maybe 2 shields for $130 (since you really need at least 2 be functional)

then they would 100% not sell.

You are looking at a new market. Players like me do NOT buy transfer tokens form the store. Ever, only in game gold, or have a friend move good for me

So by me purchasing shard shields for say $40 a pair they new revenue for EA/Broadsword etc. And of course I would buy many sets!

Nothing in this game is not worth $100 a pop

Xris

JackFlashUk said:

Smoot said:

ive thought this for a while.  any other game would have shard consolidations by now, UO cant because of the unique situation with housing.  players must rely on transfers.

that being said, i think they shouldnt be cheap.  id say $75 - $100 would be a pricepoint where people would buy them, but it would still make financial sense.  maybe 2 shields for $130 (since you really need at least 2 be functional)

then they would 100% not sell.

You are looking at a new market. Players like me do NOT buy transfer tokens form the store. Ever, only in game gold, or have a friend move good for me

So by me purchasing shard shields for say $40 a pair they new revenue for EA/Broadsword etc. And of course I would buy many sets!

Nothing in this game is not worth $100 a pop

I agree, I'd buy my xfer tokens from the store too and not VS if it was a good price. Regular xfer token should be 10$ ea or 2 for 15$. I'd also buy shields at 40$ a set (or pay for vet time added to account). Take my money?

Arnold7

Don’t quite understand all of the controversy here. Most players can already do this.  What is everyone so afraid of?  How would simply allowing a few more players visit other shards allow them to take advantage of every one else?  Just don’t see the abuse everyone is trying to prevent.  When I first started playing it appeared that all the shards where as far as the layout goes all the same so I picked the one closest to where I live.  Like the shard I am on but would like to shop on Atlantic and visit other shards just to see what they are like.  Don’t quite understand why this would be so threatening to others.  A reasonably priced token that generated maybe a half dozen or a dozen round trips would be fine with me.  Spending $20 for a one way ticket does not appeal to me.  I can buy anything I want from a third party vendor for much less than that.  Just don’t understand what abuse by players paying the monthly fee will be prevented by keeping this barrier in place.  Certainly, it would not be that difficult to place reasonable limitations on players simply making a visit to another shard to prevent whatever unfair advantage they have now.

Smoot

JackFlashUk said:

Smoot said:

ive thought this for a while.  any other game would have shard consolidations by now, UO cant because of the unique situation with housing.  players must rely on transfers.

that being said, i think they shouldnt be cheap.  id say $75 - $100 would be a pricepoint where people would buy them, but it would still make financial sense.  maybe 2 shields for $130 (since you really need at least 2 be functional)

then they would 100% not sell.

You are looking at a new market. Players like me do NOT buy transfer tokens form the store. Ever, only in game gold, or have a friend move good for me

So by me purchasing shard shields for say $40 a pair they new revenue for EA/Broadsword etc. And of course I would buy many sets!

Nothing in this game is not worth $100 a pop

i really think they would sell, extremely well for those prices.  but im not sure if going into more detail than that is allowed to be talked about on these forums.

Jepeth

I would absolutely take advantage of a $40 pair of shields. I love playing on my shard and will never leave it, but it would open the game up to me in new ways.

Or, make an auction house that lets us sell things across shards.

Taler

Jepeth said:

Or, make an auction house that lets us sell things across shards.

This is the best answer. Make VS work across shards (and you know work) and allow us to buy things from the search result window rather than teleporting to the vendor.

Seth

Taler said:

Jepeth said:

Or, make an auction house that lets us sell things across shards.

This is the best answer. Make VS work across shards (and you know work) and allow us to buy things from the search result window rather than teleporting to the vendor.

By far this is the easiest interface for cross shard trading... using VS to buy from any shard. Last time I know an external website that can allow us to search for items on any shard using just an internet browser. They have removed that function but it shows that this can be done.

Django

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

JackFlashUk

@mesanna ?  

Bilbo

Django said:

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

So you are proposing that EA allow UO to sell 12 transfer tokens for 50 cents total.  How about allowing people to age their accounts by 1 yeas for $120 per year, I would even consider $100 per year, anything less than that would be a slap in the face to all the old vets that supported UO for 14+ years non stop.

Jepeth

You paid for more than just a vet reward over those 14 years. 

Bilbo

Vet Rewards are entitlements for supporting a game with continued payments of subs, there is no other way to earn them that is why they are called REWARDS.  I can pay UO Subs for 20 years and never log on to the game and I will still earn those rewards.

JackFlashUk

Bilbo said:

Vet Rewards are entitlements for supporting a game with continued payments of subs, there is no other way to earn them that is why they are called REWARDS.  I can pay UO Subs for 20 years and never log on to the game and I will still earn those rewards.

I will combat that statement with the reminder of house teleporters 

TastyTreats

JackFlashUk said:

Bilbo said:

Vet Rewards are entitlements for supporting a game with continued payments of subs, there is no other way to earn them that is why they are called REWARDS.  I can pay UO Subs for 20 years and never log on to the game and I will still earn those rewards.

I will combat that statement with the reminder of house teleporters 

Selling house teleporters is good money for UO store.

Selling Transfers would be an initial surge in sales then they lose to much money from no transfers.

Not a good comparison.

Django

Bilbo said:

Django said:

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

So you are proposing that EA allow UO to sell 12 transfer tokens for 50 cents total.  How about allowing people to age their accounts by 1 yeas for $120 per year, I would even consider $100 per year, anything less than that would be a slap in the face to all the old vets that supported UO for 14+ years non stop.

Sorry i meant 5000 soveriegns.  So basically $50.  

Cinderella

TastyTreats said:

JackFlashUk said:

Bilbo said:

Vet Rewards are entitlements for supporting a game with continued payments of subs, there is no other way to earn them that is why they are called REWARDS.  I can pay UO Subs for 20 years and never log on to the game and I will still earn those rewards.

I will combat that statement with the reminder of house teleporters 

Selling house teleporters is good money for UO store.

Selling Transfers would be an initial surge in sales then they lose to much money from no transfers.

Not a good comparison.

that is not true.
I know people who purchase the transfer tokens now, even though they have shard shields.

Can Endless Journey characters use transfer tokens?
if they can, then they are the ones who would be purchasing them.

Cinderella

Django said:

Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors

account bound items are still on Vendors.
They do not show up on Vendor Search but you can still see them on Vendors.
People are putting them inside the Secret Chest.

(on Atlantic I saw them in the secret chest in the last few days. And just now I looked at Luna and there is a shard shield token on a vendor, but its not inside a secret chest.)

Django

Cinderella said:

Django said:

Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors

account bound items are still on Vendors.
They do not show up on Vendor Search but you can still see them on Vendors.
People are putting them inside the Secret Chest.

(on Atlantic I saw them in the secret chest in the last few days. And just now I looked at Luna and there is a shard shield token on a vendor, but its not inside a secret chest.)

I meant just like the vet shard shields.  No other account can use their tokens.

Fortis

how about a revert and refund all shard shield for another veteran pick...they know it s one of the worst decision they ever made...it will be very good for the game

RaolinDarksbane

Pardon my ignorance but what is this 14 year vet reward that is causing the heartache?

Cookie

RaolinDarksbane said:

Pardon my ignorance but what is this 14 year vet reward that is causing the heartache?

I don't have any issues with it tbh. I don't really think this is behind the economy issues. Like any free trade debate, you have arguments for and against, and arguments for and against protectionism.

Dino

I never had the wish to play on different shards. And shard hopping just for trades i find laborious and annoying. The way they took now with shard bound together with comission vendors is a step in the right direction for me. As a seller i would like to have the choice to change every item i put in my vendor to shard bound. So i could make prices indipendent from this atlantic madness and hope that other players would do the same.

Bilbo

Django said:

Bilbo said:

Django said:

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

So you are proposing that EA allow UO to sell 12 transfer tokens for 50 cents total.  How about allowing people to age their accounts by 1 yeas for $120 per year, I would even consider $100 per year, anything less than that would be a slap in the face to all the old vets that supported UO for 14+ years non stop.

Sorry i meant 5000 soveriegns.  So basically $50.  

I could see 10,000 sovereigns for 10.  That would be $10 for a one way limited xfer just like the shard shields, but unlike the Shard shield these would be 10 Xfers to any shard so you would not need to buy 2 of them.  5 round trips

Django

Bilbo said:

Django said:

Bilbo said:

Django said:

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

So you are proposing that EA allow UO to sell 12 transfer tokens for 50 cents total.  How about allowing people to age their accounts by 1 yeas for $120 per year, I would even consider $100 per year, anything less than that would be a slap in the face to all the old vets that supported UO for 14+ years non stop.

Sorry i meant 5000 soveriegns.  So basically $50.  

I could see 10,000 sovereigns for 10.  That would be $10 for a one way limited xfer just like the shard shields, but unlike the Shard shield these would be 10 Xfers to any shard so you would not need to buy 2 of them.  5 round trips

I think you need to stick with the 5000 sovereign price point.  Anything over that would not sell.  So how about 5000 sovereign for 6?  That gives you six months of them, or two per year.  I think they would definitely sell at that and make them *Non-Transferable Account Bound Item* just like the Reward ones.

Arnold7

Simplest solution just get a bus everyone without a shield that produces tokens can ride from one shard to another for a reasonable amount of gold and limit what a character can carry to equipped items, a back pack, and an unloaded mount or pet.  Have the bus run once a day.  You could also use a moongate that payers pay a fee to use.  New Haven already has a bus stop behind the bank and there are at least several banks of moongates like the one in Bucks Den scattered around the realm.  You need to encourage newer players to stick with the game.  

Of_Beasts

Just an observation but what if Broadsword is heading toward more shardbound items.  Would this decrease the need for transfers?

Jepeth

Of_Beasts said:

Just an observation but what if Broadsword is heading toward more shardbound items.  Would this decrease the need for transfers?

I think this is exactly what is happening. They're adding more reasons to play on other shards by removing reasons to transfer around. This is the result of keeping the barriers to shard transferring high as a lot of people in this thread are arguing for.

Bilbo

Django said:

Bilbo said:

Django said:

Bilbo said:

Django said:

How about this....50 sovereigns for a shard shield that produces one token per month to the specific shard with a maximum of 12 tokens given out?  After that its decorative and no longer produces tokens.   Same item limit and restrictions as vet reward shields. They did this with teleporter tokens, so why not with shard shields? Oh and of course it binds to the account that purchased it just like veteran reward tokens so it CANNOT be sold on vendors, eliminating third party sellers so all profits from it go to EA/Broadsword.

So you are proposing that EA allow UO to sell 12 transfer tokens for 50 cents total.  How about allowing people to age their accounts by 1 yeas for $120 per year, I would even consider $100 per year, anything less than that would be a slap in the face to all the old vets that supported UO for 14+ years non stop.

Sorry i meant 5000 soveriegns.  So basically $50.  

I could see 10,000 sovereigns for 10.  That would be $10 for a one way limited xfer just like the shard shields, but unlike the Shard shield these would be 10 Xfers to any shard so you would not need to buy 2 of them.  5 round trips

I think you need to stick with the 5000 sovereign price point.  Anything over that would not sell.  So how about 5000 sovereign for 6?  That gives you six months of them, or two per year.  I think they would definitely sell at that and make them *Non-Transferable Account Bound Item* just like the Reward ones.

5000 sov for 6 tokens is a good price, that is still close to $10 per limited xfer but with your idea you need 2 shields for 6 2 way trips and only between 2 preselected shards where with mine it is 5 2 way trips with just 1 limited xfer shield to any shard you want.  Still the same 100000 sov but yours gives 1 extra round trip.

Bilbo

Of_Beasts said:

Just an observation but what if Broadsword is heading toward more shardbound items.  Would this decrease the need for transfers?

Until they make everything shard bound then there is still a need for xfers.  Masteries were shard bound and alls we did was take our char to the shard that had the mastery we needed, eat it then go back home.  We could still do this with Power scrolls or take our crafter to the shard with the resources we need then take our whatever we made back home.  Rares will still be around and people will still xfer them.