Hemperor was right. (Razor features)

[ImaNewbie]

I played on a french server some weeks ago and I dont know how they managed to do that but there were some stuff from razor they managed to make unusable on their server.

As I recall on their server you couldn't loop your maccro, unequip hands before potions etc. And I used a razor downloaded from the official website so they had to modify or block something in their server data base, anyway it's doable to limit the things you can do with razor but I guess the gms will have to spend a lot of time looking for how to do so..

[Guerrilla]

[marmalade]

I played on a french server some weeks ago and I dont know how they managed to do that but there were some stuff from razor they managed to make unusable on their server.

As I recall on their server you couldn't loop your maccro, unequip hands before potions etc. And I used a razor downloaded from the official website so they had to modify or block something in their server data base, anyway it's doable to limit the things you can do with razor but I guess the gms will have to spend a lot of time looking for how to do so..

We know it's doable, that's what we're talking about. The problem is that to limit some of the features in Razor, everybody HAS to connect to the server using it. Derrick doesn't want to force people to connect using Razor if they don't want to.

[ImaNewbie]

Well, razor being an useful tool to connect to UO, even without speaking of the shitload of things you can do with it, I don't see where's the problem "forcing" people to use it.

[Galendae]

"Hemperor was Right"

Hemperor can't be right about anything, he thinks 911 was an inside job.

[Ronk]

Well, razor being an useful tool to connect to UO, even without speaking of the shitload of things you can do with it, I don't see where's the problem "forcing" people to use it.

I agree, mostly. I can see two flaws with forcing people:
1. Razor sucks. Its a shitty piece of software. Yes, it does a lot, but its full of bugs and I feel the maker should have spent more time polishing what was there as opposed to adding more features.
2. People will 'cheat' and use third party tools anyway.

On the flip side, the 'people will cheat anyway' argument is stupid to make I think. Yes, some people will cheat, you can never prevent that. All you can do is try to catch them and ban them...then they'll spoof their IP and be back.

As for razor sucking, its still not completely horrible. And if the server negotiation feature works it'd be a really good way to help force some 'client era accuracy'. Look, many people claim UOA was an era accurate tool. Maybe. Who cares? The goal here is to provide T2A accuracy, not third party accuracy. The majority of people in T2A did not have UOA and razor kills era accuracy in many ways far more than it adds to era accuracy.

[Mikel123]

1. Razor sucks. Its a shitty piece of software. Yes, it does a lot, but its full of bugs and I feel the maker should have spent more time polishing what was there as opposed to adding more features.

Feel free to ask him for a refund and he'll absolutely give you your money back.

Seriously though... full of bugs? Really?

[Blaise]

1. Razor sucks. Its a shitty piece of software. Yes, it does a lot, but its full of bugs and I feel the maker should have spent more time polishing what was there as opposed to adding more features.

Feel free to ask him for a refund and he'll absolutely give you your money back.

Seriously though... full of bugs? Really?

It can be a blit flakey at times, if you're not already familiar with how to keep razor happy on your system (run as Admin, specifics for running on Win7/Vista, etc etc).
Considering it comes bundled with the client already, MOST people will have a copy and if they have to connect with it, so be it.
A decent amount of players get into Forums/IRC when they start out so I don't really think forcing it will be that big of a deal.....but for the true old-schoolers who just play solo and don't want to use it....I could see it being a bit annoying.

[Zelek Uther]

Dexers carrying Nightsight potions, and Mages casting "In Lor"... Era Accurate!

Alchemist vendors selling Nightsight kegs! Imagine that!

A keg of Nightsight potions!

A keg of Nightsight potions.PNG (96.51 KiB) Viewed 2746 times

IMHO, the only downside is requiring new people to use Razor to connect - if that means there is a chance of losing them. Could there be a message to say "Please use Razor to connect?" or some such?

I'm old school, I played my first few weeks here connecting directly with the client. I didn't know what Razor was for. However, I would have been ok if I had clear instructions that I needed to run this thing called Razor in order to connect to the server - there would need to be a helpful error message (if this is possible). I wanted to play on a T2A Era shard, and would have done whatever was required to connect.

I realise that requiring Razor is not Era Accurate, but I believe it is the lesser of the two evils, and would lead to greater in-game Era Accuracy.

[nightshark]

I've always been an advocate of limiting features of razor to keep as close as possible to era accuracy. I believe there would be very few people who would not download razor to play here if it were required.

[Chaos]

I'd say if there was a razor update that worked with windows vista and 7 without problems natively then I would back it being required to use. However as it is, if you give someone the list of things they might need to do to get razor to run correctly in order to play the game under windows vista and 7 they will most likely pass on to the next shard.

[Light Shade]

I'd say if there was a razor update that worked with windows vista and 7 without problems natively then I would back it being required to use. However as it is, if you give someone the list of things they might need to do to get razor to run correctly in order to play the game under windows vista and 7 they will most likely pass on to the next shard.

Going on what Chaos said...

Razor is notorious for causing MANY issues after it updates. There's countless threads in our forums about it. If the developer's of Razor could get their act together and make Updates that didn't put macros and profiles in random spots everytime, it'd be one thing. They have not done this. People routinely find their macro folders EMPTY after razor updates. This is all assuming that they even allow razor to update as a lot of people pre-emptively fight back against razor by blocking updates KNOWING that razor has and will mess something up.

The program is definitely flawed. Is it better than nothing and worth the "price"? Of course it is. That does not mean it does not cause a slew of technical support issues that any decently written software would never have.

IF razor was stable from release to release, I would be all for requiring it to be used. Sign me up in an instant for that. Alas, it is not, and I have reservations about it for that reason only.

In the past, not everyone would use razor and I think that was a viable argument then. Today, though, with it bundled on the main page...I do not think it is as much of an issue anymore.

In closing, if someone can make the bundled version of Razor come "Pre-Edited" with the registry hack that keeps it updating for 50+ years...I would say let's go ahead and require Razor and do the feature negotiations. Blocking the updates from the Get-Go will avoid the vast majority of the flaws with razor and its 'updates'.

-L/S

[Zelek Uther]

Chaos, I hear you! You've spent a lot of time supporting players with technical issues. As you well know, previous Razor versions required special compatibility settings to work under Vista or Windows 7 (http://wiki.uosecondage.com/Razor).

I'd say if there was a razor update that worked with windows vista and 7 without problems
natively then I would back it being required to use.

The latest version is pretty close: Razor 1.0.13.4
I'm running it under Windows 7, no special settings required* (e.g. no admin mode, no compatiblity mode for XP SP3, no disable visual themes, no disable desktop composition).

Light Shade, I hear you too! There was one Razor update that caused people to lose their macros, although I believe they were recoverable (see http://www.runuo.com/community/threads/ ... lp.103447/). In any case, it was a nasty shock! The latest version of Razor seems stable.

* Edit: I've just had a "white screen" freeze happen, so am now re-instating compatiblity mode for XP SP3.

[BlackLeaf]

i have started again few days ago,and installed the latest version of razor on my w7 laptop.it works fine to me.
i second this mostly because i find light filter disturbing.im not speaking about all others inaccuracies that razor brings,but without a night sight spell it all looses sense (im serious).
cant we start by limiting that feature on razor users?and if they dont use razor (like 1% of population),well,since razor is the only 3rd party scripting programs allowed,thay cant use macro anyways,much better.

[Derrick]

i have started again few days ago,and installed the latest version of razor on my w7 laptop.it works fine to me.
i second this mostly because i find light filter disturbing.im not speaking about all others inaccuracies that razor brings,but without a night sight spell it all looses sense (im serious).
cant we start by limiting that feature on razor users?and if they dont use razor (like 1% of population),well,since razor is the only 3rd party scripting programs allowed,thay cant use macro anyways,much better.

I would love to limit this, I've put a lot of effort ito getting nightsight, light levels and day and night working correctly.

Sadly I don't think it's a good idea. Razor isn't the only way to modify your light levels, it can also be done by editing the client files, there's of course no way to detect this, and the info is out there on how to do it. If we felt that using Razor limitation was a good idea I would limit nightsight, however the simplicity of circumventing such a system can't justify instantiating a Razor requirement. It would be just as effective for us to make an official recommendation that the light-level filter not be used.