that's a very good and fair point, but this is not the way to balance that. that's why i wanted perma tots years ago tbh :/
(kasa, tome, rbc, couple of 3-1s, entry level pvp suit)
but making money and getting the items you dream of is the maguffin that keeps UO going, people should be able to easily get an entry level suit, but it shouldn't be so easy to get perfect gear, and an orne is a big part of that. that's why 1/3 bracelets still have value. 0/3 are so hard to sell already because of the loot bump and the current good jewels: Players ratio
you gotta think of the big picture dude, how things impact other things, what's there at the moment has had years of adjustment in the player economy and things to balance out as it currently does. what you suggest will throw a hell of a lot of things into total chaos for years, will render things redundant which will then need rebalancing, etc. it's not just as simple as 'i want an orne, i've been here ages, i feel like i should have one by now' ¬_¬
because when it boils down to it, that's all your argument is, and that enough people feel that way for it to be changed. you're basically calling for a referendum...
RIGHT ONLY READ THIS NEXT BIT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, IT'S NOT ARGUMENT, IT'S JUST THEORY, BUT IT MIGHT BE QUITE BORING
i've done games design at degree level, and this actually relates to it a lot, im not trying to pull rank/an appeal to authority here, but im gonna explain why i disagree with changing it.
UO is an old skool game, the people that still play it, play it because it is an old skool game. the new skool of games, is that all content should be easily accessible to players, creating a smooth gaming experience that carries the player along a pre-planned set of experiences, often of a fantasy scenario. you can see this in countless new games, halo, gears of war, uncharted, tomb raiders, pretty much all of them.
there is a reason for this though, and the reason is money. it is a formula that is developed to create business efficient and disposable games, you play the experience, you complete it, you buy a new one. Difficulty is a big part of this, nothing should be too difficult for anyone, the content should be accessible to maximize the audience, and so maximize the sales.
world of warcraft is an example of an MMO built around these principles, all of the expansions add content which makes all of the previous content redundant, and the games are released in succession as market extension strategies.
UO is not like that. UO is from the old skool of gaming, the skool of bedroom programmers who dont give a fuck about the money, they just want to make something awesome. in mmo form it's fucking amazing, it's a living, breathing, micro-world; with it's own economy, history, industry... all of these kind of things, and it's fucking marvelous.
but part of being an old skool game is challenging difficulty, players are not led by the hand to content, they're forced to battle and strive through the game hungrily to unlock that content, and the triumph is all the sweeter because it is so difficult to do. Think of games like bombjack, contra, golden axe, etc. they only had a few levels, but they were so hard to complete, and you'd always keep going back for more because you wanted to beat them!
UO is that kind of gameplay though, and i like that because it fits in with the micro-world idea of it, it makes it more of a life simulation, which is what an MMO SHOULD BE, a true mmo. that's WHY people still play it. i mean could you imagine if people had a referendum in real life saying that the lottery was too hard to win cos loads of them had played it a bunch and not gotten rich?? that's basically what you're saying. you're thinking of UO as a new skool game, and you shouldn't imo. we should keep it as what it is, because that's why it's good.
