Joined a week ago but considering leaving...

[Generic Player]

I don't know any tamer issues yet. However, you are doing noone a favor by holding back on the reports. Derrick is not omniscient and does not own a crystal ball that allows him to gaze directly into 1998. Given the sheer mass of potential inaccuracies to fix, the only sensible attitude Derrick can take is if an issue is not reported, it is not known, and if an issue is not pressed, it can be pushed behind issues that are.

It isn't held back, it is a 3 page long sticky. The point is we have basically stopped playing/testing/reporting because it seems pointless. If a bunch of simple fixed don't get addressed, what hope do complex issues have?

Personally, I don't know most of these issues, and I haven't seen a great deal of discussion on them in the Era Accuracy or Bug Reports forum except the consolidated Tamer Bugs thread. It'd be nice if the people who PvE could start the discussions there, because you can't really expect the PvPers to do it, or at least you can't expect them to press it as hard as they do PvP matters. (as for me, Mining appears to be 100% accurate!).

Well, there's not that many people who PvE, so don't expect that much discussion. But I've seen several discussions in the past month on the bugs and era accuracy forums. All kill, follow speed, blade spirits, barding being boned, evil mage robes, etc.

[Kaivan]

Looking at the pertinent threads that you have posted or posted in, only two of them have actually gone without a staff post in the threads. I wouldn't necessarily call that a lack of communication.

Good communication is more than simply posting anything at all. It would be nice to get an actual reply, like "ok, I am adding this to my list of things to fix" so we know it is being addressed. And the list of things to be fixed should be public.

In every thread, save one, that Derrick has responded in, he has stated that he is looking into the issue. On the one issue that he hasn't stated that he is looking into it (taming minimum values), it is mainly because we haven't decided what list of values we will be considering the authoritative values for UOSA.

As for the list of minimum taming requirements for each animal being overtly posted, I doubt that this will actually happen. No direct code for specific variables has been posted in the past and I wouldn't expect Taming to be an exception.

Quite frankly, that is retarded. The server will never be accurate if hiding information from the people who are offering to do the needed testing is the way things will be. It takes virtually no time to grab that info, and then the wiki could be updated, and players could research inaccuracies. It is really frustrating when something as simple as changing some numbers like the taming requirements was posted weeks ago, and there's no communication about it. No, "ok this will be fixed", or "this has been fixed", or "there's no enough proof these numbers are right", it's just left hanging.

Posting the minimum taming requirements is irrelevant in this case. If the numbers are wrong compared to a specific list, and we choose to follow that list, then the numbers will be updated to reflect that list. Upon doing so, a mention of such a change will be made and a reference to the list that is the basis for our change will be made. From there, players can update the wiki to reflect the minimum requirements. Also, the task of posting a list of all the minimum taming values is not as easy as one might think. If the current code for creatures resembles the RunUO default code at all, then the minimum taming value for any creature is stored in each creature script. This constitutes looking through nearly 100 scripts for the purpose of posting the minimum taming values for creatures. A more efficient use of resources would be to simply update the minimum taming values for each script once the values have been decided upon.

While I can't guarantee anything, a full rewrite of AI behavior for most types of creatures (particularly tamed animals and non-aggressive AI) is an ideal approach to attempting to alleviate many of these issues. However, with Derrick being the only coder, and his time being as limited as it is to work on things, this may not happen soon.

Yeah, AI is hard to get right. But the simple fixes could be done in the mean time. And *why* is Derrick the only coder, especially if he doesn't have time to do it? Put the code up and let those of us who do have time get this stuff fixed.[/quote]

While small fixes may seem to be an easy change, some of them like the taming minimum values take time to fix, despite their minor effect on the game. While this issue is directly tied with the fact that Derrick is the only coder, this is the case because of several reasons including code consistency and security.

Having looked at both the suggestions and bugs forum, there is a great deal of activity from Derrick regarding bugs in the bugs forum, and Derrick spends the time to confirm that he has read and will change something to make it accurate when a thread provides fairly conclusive evidence in the suggestions forum. Beyond that, the specific issues regarding taming, and pet AI in general are something that Derrick is aware of (he even has a post at the end of page 3 of your stickied thread). While I can't guarantee anything, a full rewrite of AI behavior for most types of creatures (particularly tamed animals and non-aggressive AI) is an ideal approach to attempting to alleviate many of these issues. However, with Derrick being the only coder, and his time being as limited as it is to work on things, this may not happen soon.

Small note: The issues regarding peacemaking are a subset of a larger bug with non-aggressive creature AI at the moment. That, along with the other AI issues, can be lumped together into one large category of buggy AI.

I understand AI is a large task, which is why I haven't posted regarding specific issues unless it is so horribly wrong that it is actually getting me killed (nightmare attacking me point blank). Taming values are just numbers. Follow speed is just a number. I expected these to be fixed quickly, especially follow speed and how critical it is for a tamer to be able to defend themselves on this shard. Instead I see frenzied ostard dex being increased (honestly, I never believed that number was correct once I finally tamed one, but I had no way to accurately test it either way so I left it the way it was), follow being slightly adjusted (to make them not give up so easily, but not their speed), and wyrms having their flying animation back while following (which didn't exist unless they were in fly mode).

Again, while some of these issues may seem to be simple issues with just a number to be changed, they are much more complex than that. In the case of follow speeds, we have a lot of work to do in determining how animals actually followed on OSI servers. Then we must attempt to understand how that kind of system would be modified to allow a pet to follow faster. Finally, when we do actually understand NPC movement, we must then attempt to tweak the numbers to attempt to best reflect the information available from the era.

his shard is how old? A year old? Two years old? Bard is the most popular PvE profession on the shard and Provoke, one of the simplest skills in the game, doesn't work properly? Make dude A attack dude B with no agro for the bard unless they fail, and only with dude A. I find it hard to believe that is an AI issue. Even the text is wrong, and that was posted in the big screenshot thread in era accuracy months ago.

I'm patient, but only to a certain point. Derrick could ask for help, programming something as complex as a shard is a lot of work. I offered, but if I wanted to submit patches, I'd have to start with the default RunUO source.

To the first point regarding provocation, the incorrect text has been updated to more accurately reflect the text from T2A (see latest patch notes where the changes were made as an addendum to that patch). To the second point, this is exactly the kind of example that I am talking about with respect to reporting issues. No one has reported an issue regarding provocation making the second creature aggressive to you on a failure (I checked the accuracy forum). Further investigation into the provocation script on the demo confirms that on a failure, if the person using the provocation skill is not within the limits of a city, the provoked creature will attack the person who provoked it (this is regardless of AI).

[Generic Player]

On the one issue that he hasn't stated that he is looking into it (taming minimum values), it is mainly because we haven't decided what list of values we will be considering the authoritative values for UOSA.

Which is very much the point. There shouldn't be a "we will secretly decide what numbers we want to use", there should be an open discussion of "what is actually correct?". I know the tamingarchive values are correct, and it would be a lot more helpful if there was a simple "give us more proof" or "we'll fix it" instead of "we'll ignore this and not say anything". How am I supposed to know if I should be finding more proof if nobody says what the issue is?

Posting the minimum taming requirements is irrelevant in this case. If the numbers are wrong compared to a specific list, and we choose to follow that list, then the numbers will be updated to reflect that list. Upon doing so, a mention of such a change will be made and a reference to the list that is the basis for our change will be made. From there, players can update the wiki to reflect the minimum requirements.

The wiki is already wrong. It is absurd to expect people who are taking time to test, find bugs and report them to waste time doing tons of extra work because you have an irrational fear of being open and forthcoming with information. I'm not going to go on test center and find out the currently used requirements for every single creature so that I can then do the work of proving which ones are wrong so that this can finally be addressed, that is ridiculous. Just post the current numbers, the wiki can be updated to reflect the current reality of the shard, and those of us interested in fixing things can go through and find proof for wrong numbers.

Also, the task of posting a list of all the minimum taming values is not as easy as one might think. If the current code for creatures resembles the RunUO default code at all, then the minimum taming value for any creature is stored in each creature script. This constitutes looking through nearly 100 scripts for the purpose of posting the minimum taming values for creatures. A more efficient use of resources would be to simply update the minimum taming values for each script once the values have been decided upon.

It's a 2 minute shell script to get that info, lets not be silly here.

While small fixes may seem to be an easy change, some of them like the taming minimum values take time to fix, despite their minor effect on the game. While this issue is directly tied with the fact that Derrick is the only coder, this is the case because of several reasons including code consistency and security.

Yes, we all know no software could ever exist with more than one person writing code. If you're afraid of people taking the code and setting up their own server just say so. Code consistency and security is an embarrassingly bad excuse. You do realize RunUO itself is open source right?

In the case of follow speeds, we have a lot of work to do in determining how animals actually followed on OSI servers. Then we must attempt to understand how that kind of system would be modified to allow a pet to follow faster. Finally, when we do actually understand NPC movement, we must then attempt to tweak the numbers to attempt to best reflect the information available from the era.

So, making follow speed slow to please gankers requires no time at all, but undoing that change requires months?

To the second point, this is exactly the kind of example that I am talking about with respect to reporting issues. No one has reported an issue regarding provocation making the second creature aggressive to you on a failure (I checked the accuracy forum). Further investigation into the provocation script on the demo confirms that on a failure, if the person using the provocation skill is not within the limits of a city, the provoked creature will attack the person who provoked it (this is regardless of AI).

It is in the bugs forum, under the unfortunately named peacemaking bugs thread, which actually ended up encompassing barding bugs in general. And you misunderstood the issue. The provoked creature should attack the bard if they fail. Not the creature the provoked target was told to attack. And neither should attack the bard on success.

[applejack]

Afraid of copying code? Secretly helping one class and conspiring against another? You sir are the new Hemperor! Enjoy that distinction.

[Sandro]

this guy is an idiot

[BobDobbs]

UOSA has given me my money's worth.

That's about all I have left to contribute to this thread.

[Derrick]

Please keep specific topics in the threads which are already open to discussing them. I will not further derail this thread by responding to presumptions. I've made statements on the topics above in most of the threads.

there should be an open discussion of "what is actually correct?". I know the tamingarchive values are correct...

I encourge you to have this discussion (In it's own thread) and present your findings. I've intended to use the Taming Archive numbers, but it's just not been done. You do not need what is currently on the shard as a source for this.

Some may not be satisfied with the speed at which things progress or the order in which things are done. If you have a specific question why not just ask me instead of throwing tar and feathers this way? I'm as close as a double-click in IRC.

[Generic Player]

I am not "throwing tar and feathers". If you intended to use the taming archive numbers, why didn't you simply say that so that we can check that off of our list of "things we need to worry about proving/testing/discussing" so we can move on to other issues? This is the entire problem, the lack of communication. I'm not in IRC, and would rather not have to idle in IRC all day so that I can constantly pester you. It seems like it would be much easier to just be more forthcoming in the replies on the forum. I just find it quite shocking how when you get a couple more people added to that tiny minority of the user base that reports bugs, researches inaccuracies, etc you basically tell them to go away.

The reason I would like to know the current numbers is to know which ones are wrong. There isn't much point in me spending time trying to find proof of requirements for things that are correct, and redoing the entire test center requirements testing again here is not something I would consider wasting time on. This isn't specific to taming, the same goes for the skill reqs for any other skill. Why do you want the wiki to be wrong, who does that benefit? A single person is never going to be able to make an accurate bug free server, so if you want help you need to make information accessible.

[Derrick]

I spend about 75% of my time in correspondence, not all of which is visible here. I can't find the thread you're referring to but i do believe I commented in it.

I encourage you to have this discussion (In it's own thread) and present your findings.

I just find it quite shocking how when you get a couple more people added to that tiny minority of the user base that reports bugs, researches inaccuracies, etc you basically tell them to go away.

I don't understand how you drew that conclusion from my post.

If you would like to discuss taming difficulties, please bump that thread and discuss it; I'm participate as i'm able, if you have a specific urgent question or finding please alert me via PM, IRC. I am unable to follow all threads, let alone respond to all threads.

[Generic Player]

I didn't draw that conclusion from your post in this thread, but from the posts in the bug/era accuracy threads. I realize you aren't actually saying that, I am just saying that's how it feels. Nobody is going to stay motivated to spend time researching issues, testing and reporting if they feel like its falling on deaf ears.

[Derrick]

I didn't draw that conclusion from your post in this thread, but from the posts in the bug/era accuracy threads. I realize you aren't actually saying that, I am just saying that's how it feels. Nobody is going to stay motivated to spend time researching issues, testing and reporting if they feel like its falling on deaf ears.

I understand it's frustrating to provide information and not see results in what feels like an adeqate amount of time. I am frustrated at my own development speed quite often.

I also understand there doesn't seem to be a reason why clothing on evil mages is fixed while <insert other issue here> is not, but i assure you there is a reason; there's a reason for everything, even if the reason is as simple as: that's just too big of a project to get started on tonight, so I'll fix these damn clothings while I've got a few minutes (Which I believe actually was the reason). I'll also assure you that the reason is not that it's because we desire to give <player sub set A> and advantage over <player sub set B>. I'm not especially eager to respond to accusations of that nature, usually if someone has those color glasses on they won't find it very easy to take them off.

[Orbanaz]

I don't want to be an ass, but if you are that unhappy with this free shard that Derrick and others VOLUNTEER their free time to running, then perhaps you could start your own or go play another.

I, for one, have enjoyed this shard and can't believe the level of dedication of the people running it. As people have posted before, an approach more conducive to getting some changes implemented would be to research the particular bugs/fixes you notice and make a post for discussion or approach the authorities in a more helpful manner. They are doing us a favor, after all, by running this for free.

[Sandro]

I don't want to be an ass, but if you are that unhappy with this free shard that Derrick and others VOLUNTEER their free time to running, then perhaps you could start your own or go play another.

I, for one, have enjoyed this shard and can't believe the level of dedication of the people running it. As people have posted before, an approach more conducive to getting some changes implemented would be to research the particular bugs/fixes you notice and make a post for discussion or approach the authorities in a more helpful manner. They are doing us a favor, after all, by running this for free.

great post

[Jorel]

I don't want to be an ass, but if you are that unhappy with this free shard that Derrick and others VOLUNTEER their free time to running, then perhaps you could start your own or go play another.

I, for one, have enjoyed this shard and can't believe the level of dedication of the people running it. As people have posted before, an approach more conducive to getting some changes implemented would be to research the particular bugs/fixes you notice and make a post for discussion or approach the authorities in a more helpful manner. They are doing us a favor, after all, by running this for free.

great post

ditto

[Generic Player]

I don't want to be an ass, but if you are that unhappy with this free shard that Derrick and others VOLUNTEER their free time to running, then perhaps you could start your own or go play another.

I, for one, have enjoyed this shard and can't believe the level of dedication of the people running it. As people have posted before, an approach more conducive to getting some changes implemented would be to research the particular bugs/fixes you notice and make a post for discussion or approach the authorities in a more helpful manner. They are doing us a favor, after all, by running this for free.

If you actually bothered to read the thread, you would know I have posted several issues, spent time researching inaccuracies, and am active on the bugs/accuracy forums. A little less "if you want to help make the server better then gtfo we hate you" attitude from the peanut gallery would be cool. Derrick can handle responding to perceived issues like an adult, you should be able to do it too.