Blessed Items should break from damage [reposted]

[Faust]

Hardly think Derrick would go against his goal for this shard.

[MatronDeWinter]

Selective grandfathering hardly sounds fair to me.

Why not go back and grandfather in pre-patch katanas before the swing speed of these weapons changed then? I lost a great deal of money on that.

[applejack]

Hardly think Derrick would go against his goal for this shard.

I hope you're right.

Blessed items breaking from damage is mechanical. If you grandfather those items, I want my gm hiding/stealth/snoop/steal toon to not reveal when he snoops while stealthing. I had those mad skills before the patch that changed it. Of course not, that's silly.

[Fwerp]

It wouldn't be selective grandfathering -- it would be categorical. All of those who have paid exorbitantly high prices for their deeds would get what they paid for. I don't see why this wouldn't be fair.

[tekai]

For the record, Whyle I get to Keep Jade, he is no longer Overpowered and has been a normal dragon since the patch that increased dragons spellcasting capabilities.

/Mourn Real Jade

[MatronDeWinter]

It wouldn't be selective grandfathering -- it would be categorical. All of those who have paid exorbitantly high prices for their deeds would get what they paid for. I don't see why this wouldn't be fair.

That's selective, don't kid yourself.

[Fwerp]

How is that selective? As I said, it would be categorical -- everyone who has paid the very high price gets the commensurately superior bless deed. It is not selective at all -- it is all inclusive of all deeds that were acquired at the steep price.

[MatronDeWinter]

Do you know what I paid for katanas pre-patch? Were they grandfathered? Do I get a refund?

It is being selective.

Just because this particular thing is relevant to you, and holds a high cost, you think it should be grandfathered in. There have been MANY things that were of high cost and important to other players. Why should this one insignificant thing, be any different? Because you spent psuedo-accurate silver on it?

[bismuth]

I think it would be nonsensical to "grandfather" unbreakable blessed items when in reality there is nothing to grandfather. It's not like they have some sort of property on them called "unbreakable" and the change is going to be to stop spawning "unbreakable" items.

What you have are "blessed" items. Blessed items have certain characteristics, the unbreakable characteristic was never supposed to be a part of blessing and should be fixed. So then you want derrick to specifically code in some new feature, (unbreakable), and apply it to all currently blessed items just as a special privilege to some people? As has already been pointed out that would be like coding in two separate systems for skills and allowing pre-patch characters to operate under a different ruleset for their skills.

Grandfathering is already taken way too far on this shard. On OSI when they turned on decay in houses they just went ahead and turned it on, they didn't make it so things won't decay until they are moved like Derrick did here.

The one thing that unfortunately is hard to replicate is the strictness of OSI staff. If this were my shard I would be deleting all the items people acquired through bugs, like sandals hued dye tub colours. I would also be handing out bans for people who wear or possess items acquired through exploits.

[Pacifico]

Spending insane amount of gold for something and having it turn into worthless/not even close to what you paid for is the risk one takes in UO. I remember reading a post about cove bank leaving and someone had a fit about how they spent so much gold on a house for vendors and there was a good response by Derrick about UO changes. I'll try and find it later.

The reward mask/sandal is unblessed from the start correct? The actual clothing bless deed is in question here. Clothing bless deeds are obtained from silver from staff. The same clothing bless deeds were obtained but the items blessed were breakable is era accurate. There should be no debate, clothing bless deed items should be breakable.

I'd almost like to see the change not go in if the old items will be grandfathered. Has Derrick or any staff even commented on blessed items being breakable as something they are even considering? This might be an issue that they have already discussed or have taken action on.

[Fwerp]

It would not be being arbitrarily selective.

Unlike other era inaccuracies that were later uncovered through scouring patch notes, this was an inaccuracy that was well-known by staff and players. The staff chose quite deliberately to allow bless deeds to behave in the manner they currently do, and they charged players a proportionately high price for the deeds.

It will be vastly different from your katana situation because you were not sold a bill of goods directly from a GM. Your situation was remedied because new information came to light, and because it greatly effected game mechanics. This is simply not the case with this proposed change.

Derrick knew knew full-well that he was distributing items that were not behaving as they did in era, and to suddenly change them because of an outcry is more populism than adherence to era accuracy.

[bismuth]

If the intention was for them to be unbreakable instead of just blessed they would have given out "clothing unbreakability deeds" which add (unbreakable) to items they are used on instead of (blessed).

Blessed status simply needs to be fixed to reflect the properties a blessed item is supposed to have. One of which is not being unbreakable.

[Fwerp]

"If the intention was for them to be unbreakable instead of just blessed they would have given out "clothing unbreakability deeds" which add (unbreakable) to items they are used on instead of (blessed)."

This was quite clearly the intention, because they knew that they were granting bless deeds this property, and they promulgated an entire rewards system based upon blessed items having this property. It was not an omission based on ignorance, but a proactive step on the part of the staff to introduce bless deeds that confer unbreakability, and to charge am absurdly high price for it. But for this property, the deeds and the items that are blessed with the deeds would simply not make sense to obtain. It was a systematic decision made by the staff to proceed in this way, and to ignore this fact in your considerations is disingenuous.

[bismuth]

Can I get a screenshot where your blessed item says (unbreakable)? I think that the staff sold bless deeds, not unbreakability deeds. But maybe I am wrong.

I noticed that my ostard keeps running out of stamina. Considering all the time and effort I put into taming an ostard my ostard should have been grandfathered with unlimited stamina, yes? The staff promulgated an entire mount system based upon mounts having this property (unlimited stamina) etc etc...

[Fwerp]

Of course they say blessed. I did not claim they said unbreakable. What I said was that it was clearly the staff's intention to include unbreakability as an attribute of blessed clothing. This is clear from the fact that they willingly eschewed their knowledge of how these deeds worked in era (again, this was never disputed), and created a whole system based on the deeds conferring unbreakability.