The Cut-Off Date

Topics related to Second Age

Unlimited Bank Weight and Skill Locks...Yes or No?

Yes
46
79%
No
6
10%
Yes or No to One and Not the Other
6
10%
 
Total votes: 58

bismuth
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by bismuth »

There's no reason to grandfather the inaccuracies in the housing.

Far too much is grandfathered here. For example OSI simply turned on decay in houses, they did not go to the trouble of grandfathering items. On here for some reason people are allowed to have non-decaying items outside of their house for reasons of "grandfathering" in an inaccurate bug.

Co-owners should not be grandfathered in. That would be incredibly ridiculous.

User avatar
MatronDeWinter
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 7249
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:35 am
Location: 你的錢包

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by MatronDeWinter »

bismuth wrote:There's no reason to grandfather the inaccuracies in the housing.

Far too much is grandfathered here. For example OSI simply turned on decay in houses, they did not go to the trouble of grandfathering items. On here for some reason people are allowed to have non-decaying items outside of their house for reasons of "grandfathering" in an inaccurate bug.

Co-owners should not be grandfathered in. That would be incredibly ridiculous.
Derrick mentioned that the non-decay items inside peoples castles/keeps, were only made that way to give people ample time to move their things. It was mentioned that even these non-decay items will eventually decay, and the current state is only temporary.

As far as grandfathering co-owners goes, I agree, there is no need. All that has to be done is for the server to remove any co-owner from each house, who is also the owner/co-owner of another house.

bismuth
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by bismuth »

MatronDeWinter wrote:
bismuth wrote:There's no reason to grandfather the inaccuracies in the housing.

Far too much is grandfathered here. For example OSI simply turned on decay in houses, they did not go to the trouble of grandfathering items. On here for some reason people are allowed to have non-decaying items outside of their house for reasons of "grandfathering" in an inaccurate bug.

Co-owners should not be grandfathered in. That would be incredibly ridiculous.
Derrick mentioned that the non-decay items inside peoples castles/keeps, were only made that way to give people ample time to move their things. It was mentioned that even these non-decay items will eventually decay, and the current state is only temporary.

As far as grandfathering co-owners goes, I agree, there is no need. All that has to be done is for the server to remove any co-owner from each house, who is also the owner/co-owner of another house.
No the entire co-owner system needs to be removed to make the housing system accurate to phase 1.

User avatar
MatronDeWinter
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 7249
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:35 am
Location: 你的錢包

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by MatronDeWinter »

bismuth wrote:
MatronDeWinter wrote:
bismuth wrote:There's no reason to grandfather the inaccuracies in the housing.

Far too much is grandfathered here. For example OSI simply turned on decay in houses, they did not go to the trouble of grandfathering items. On here for some reason people are allowed to have non-decaying items outside of their house for reasons of "grandfathering" in an inaccurate bug.

Co-owners should not be grandfathered in. That would be incredibly ridiculous.
Derrick mentioned that the non-decay items inside peoples castles/keeps, were only made that way to give people ample time to move their things. It was mentioned that even these non-decay items will eventually decay, and the current state is only temporary.

As far as grandfathering co-owners goes, I agree, there is no need. All that has to be done is for the server to remove any co-owner from each house, who is also the owner/co-owner of another house.
No the entire co-owner system needs to be removed to make the housing system accurate to phase 1.
Yeah, you are right.

In that case then have the server go through all of the co-owners and remove any that do NOT own a house. Then, on the check that is made to refresh a house, if the owner of the house is a co-owner somewhere else, do not refresh the house until they are no longer a co-owner.

Kaivan
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:07 pm

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Kaivan »

This particular issue is something that Derrick and I have had a great deal of discussion on, and this is the shard stance on the issue.

We have decided on November 23, 1999 as the cut off date, and have decided to include everything in in that set of patches excluding Phase II housing. The reason for this is because of the fact that November 23 represents the last set of patch notes that were done that really held true to the T2A ruleset. All patches spanning the year 2000, are changes to the game geared towards the introduction of UOR, which is why we have chosen the November 23 cutoff date in the first place.

Of course, as mentioned before, the only exception to the inclusion of the patches for November 23 is the introduction of anything to do with Phase II housing (to find out exactly what was part of Phase II and III housing, read this article on the subject). This is because of the fact that Phase II housing can be considered an early introduction of UOR mechanics that was designed to be completed with the Phase III system. Thus, Phase II housing represents a temporary situation in the context of housing, and was never intended as a long-term introduction to the game, unlike all other additions at that time. Given that, we were faced with two choices: exclude an entire patch (housing lock down changes, co-owners, and bank box weight limits) in spite of their qualification in terms of the date, or exclude portions of the January 24, 2000 patch (practically everything in that patch would be excluded). Given those two options, we have opted for the former.

This can pretty much be taken as an official response regarding our stance on accuracy and inclusion of patches. We'll probably have this statement placed in a relatively prominent location, albeit with better wording (7:30 am posting with no sleep probably doesn't look too amazing), so that others can see this and know exactly what to expect.
UOSA Historian and former staff member: August 11, 2008 - June 19, 2016

Useful links for researching T2A Mechanics

Stratics - UO Latest Updates - Newsgroup 1 - Noctalis - UO98.org

User avatar
Mens Rea
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 2952
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:59 am

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Mens Rea »

Kaivan wrote:This is because of the fact that Phase II housing can be considered an early introduction of UOR mechanics...

This can pretty much be taken as an official response regarding our stance on accuracy and inclusion of patches.
Is it possible that this reasoning could be used to exclude other features as well?

If it is able to be shown that a certain feature links with a later UO:R feature, can the reasoning apply to other situations?

User avatar
Derrick
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Cove
Contact:

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Derrick »

Mens Rea wrote:
Kaivan wrote:This is because of the fact that Phase II housing can be considered an early introduction of UOR mechanics...

This can pretty much be taken as an official response regarding our stance on accuracy and inclusion of patches.
Is it possible that this reasoning could be used to exclude other features as well?

If it is able to be shown that a certain feature links with a later UO:R feature, can the reasoning apply to other situations?
This is pretty much a split based on this particular Nov '99 patch. Other patch dates are much more clean cut.

It's never been considered to remove skill locks, the consideration was on removing stat locks which came in a much later era of UO.
Image
"The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined."

uofuntime
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:53 am

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by uofuntime »

son wrote:This is as confusing as his sig
good one :lol:


Anyway, removing co owners isn't too big of a deal for me. I multi client with a house keeper to open doors anyways. I was testing out the privileges of a friend vs co-owner and ... can't see much problem if co-owners were removed (for me at least).

But I think adding weight limit to banks would be a bad idea.
Last edited by uofuntime on Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Corbin
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:18 am

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Corbin »

MatronDeWinter wrote:Strongly Disagree.

The early(ish) T2A rules that still exist are the only things keeping me playing here. I actually tend to think that we should shift the "era" the opposite direction.

Most people move quite a bit. This will actually make a huge difference. (also removing the ability to lock-down/use keys on the porch of (non towers at the very least) should be high on the priority.
This sounds like another episode of "whatever helps Matron be a better scammer/thief/griefer is a good change". Nothing in reverting to the old system will be of benefit to anyone else. These were some of the very few changes that were made to the game that were actually good.

Frankly, housing right now is at the best era UO has had and is indeed era accurate. Co-Owners is a huge help for people who share houses like myself and my wife, lock downs are at a decent number for the era since there is no, and should be no decay in houses. On the issue of porch lock downs, we were able to do this in T2A, so why would it be removed now?
Image
Pacific (98-02) - Mystic of FL
Catskills (03-08) - Roo Avery of VIT, T^B
UOSA - Amos Trask/Roo Avery of WTC

bismuth
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:46 pm

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by bismuth »

Corbin wrote:Frankly, housing right now is at the best era UO has had and is indeed era accurate.
Are you kidding? The housing system in place currently never existed on OSI, ever. Even the individual elements of it are inaccurate. For example, co-ownership was never possible if you already owned a house. Either you could own or co-own a single house. So aside from the fact that co-owners did not exist at all during phase 1 housing (this shard's target phase), even when they were added it did not behave as it does now.

Other things are also inaccurate, such as locking down stackables.

I'd like to see a specific date picked for housing, either the start of phase 1 or the patch where "i wish to lock this down" was introduced instead of using keys for lockdowns. Then the staff can browse through the patchnotes and put together an update that solves all the issues at once.

Really the only question at this point should be "phase 1 start, or voice commands patch?". I don't think there is any debating that we should have a housing system which accurately replicates a certain snapshot of the OSI housing.

Blackbeard
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:52 am

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Blackbeard »

Kaivan wrote:We have decided on November 23, 1999 as the cut off date, and have decided to include everything in in that set of patches excluding Phase II housing ... Given that, we were faced with two choices: exclude an entire patch (housing lock down changes, co-owners, and bank box weight limits) in spite of their qualification in terms of the date, or exclude portions of the January 24, 2000 patch (practically everything in that patch would be excluded). Given those two options, we have opted for the former.
Please excuse my lack of comprehension but does this mean unlimited bank weight is being removed? Or is it just that the aspects of this Publish regarding housing changes are being excluded?
"In case I don't see ya: Good afternoon, good evening and good night."

User avatar
MatronDeWinter
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 7249
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:35 am
Location: 你的錢包

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by MatronDeWinter »

Corbin wrote:
MatronDeWinter wrote:Strongly Disagree.

The early(ish) T2A rules that still exist are the only things keeping me playing here. I actually tend to think that we should shift the "era" the opposite direction.

Most people move quite a bit. This will actually make a huge difference. (also removing the ability to lock-down/use keys on the porch of (non towers at the very least) should be high on the priority.
This sounds like another episode of "whatever helps Matron be a better scammer/thief/griefer is a good change". Nothing in reverting to the old system will be of benefit to anyone else. These were some of the very few changes that were made to the game that were actually good.

Frankly, housing right now is at the best era UO has had and is indeed era accurate. Co-Owners is a huge help for people who share houses like myself and my wife, lock downs are at a decent number for the era since there is no, and should be no decay in houses. On the issue of porch lock downs, we were able to do this in T2A, so why would it be removed now?
No, I'm not whining over all-locked-down houses, I am just saying that I play this game because I enjoy it. If the things I enjoy are removed, there really is no reason for me to play. I'm not a huge fan of PvP, PvM, Events, Crafting. You are probably a PvM'er, if they removed all monsters and this specifically became a PvP only server would you have any reason to play? I quit OSI not long after those changes. The only thing that extended my playing there out another year or so is the fact that there were always changes, so the possibility of finding something new to do was real. UOSA is on a path to "era-accuracy", so when/if it eventually reaches a point where the mechanics are perfectly coded, and playing a rogue is not a part of that, I really have nothing left to do.

Joueur Moyen
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Joueur Moyen »

So what are the proposed changes and is there a planned implementation date?

Bank weight limit set to 400 stones?

Co-owners gone completely, or only if not a house owner/co-owner of a different house?

No more locked down keys outside of houses? (What about locked down keys on key rings inside of houses, or inside chests?)

I don't really care because I'll adapt to whatever changes are implemented, but I do try to be somewhat prepared.

User avatar
Derrick
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Cove
Contact:

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by Derrick »

The most extreme and likely changes that are coming would be removal of co-owners, no locked down stackables, removal of stat locks (not skill locks), removal of party system, and the removal of the ability to lock down keys above a door on the outside steps.

The ability to lockdown keyrings on the steps of a tower, and away from the door is accurate, but the ability to lock down things high above the steps is a bug I created.

The bank weight limit should also be applied, but not until I can get around to fixing the gold weight and item count exemption on sub-containers of banks.
Image
"The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined."

User avatar
MatronDeWinter
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 7249
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:35 am
Location: 你的錢包

Re: The Cut-Off Date

Post by MatronDeWinter »

Should locked down keys be usable by anyone? During T2A you could eat peoples hanging herbs, random food, use their dye tubs, runebooks. It seems as though they are not usable here, until you add the keyring, which makes me think something is wrong with it. There is also no LOS check when using ringed-keys. For instance, I keep a ringed-key inside my castle, I have a macro set to "use ring, target door", and even though I have no LOS to the ring, I can use it to get inside, which basically means that if a key is locked down inside on a ring, it has the same potential as one raised up in Z and locked on the porch.

Post Reply