Stable Masters:

[Mirage]

Show me proof that they didn't.

It goes both ways.

Actually no, it doesn't. You are requesting a change and thus, the burden of proof is upon you.

This change is also so game altering that it does need to be thoroughly vetted before implementation. It's just common sense and good administration.

I agree, if you want something changed from the way that it is now, you need to show proof and do your research.

[Faust]

That research had already been done months before making his statement pointless.

[Hiram]

I wouldn't call them completely useless, I would say they are like a gamble to keep your creatures instead of retaming them.

If I have a chance that i can keep my 3 dragons for 90g until tomorrow instead of retaming them, I will stable them and hope he doesnt get killed rather than log out with 3 dragons sitting around somewhere.

[tekai]

Hemp, that thing you posted in turkish talks about trammel


AGAIN, they made 100 million stealth nerfs to tamers before trammel exsisted.

so your all kill source is another faulty one.

[Hemperor]

Hemp, that thing you posted in turkish talks about trammel


AGAIN, they made 100 million stealth nerfs to tamers before trammel exsisted.

so your all kill source is another faulty one.

I was going to reply pointing out your numerous flaws and ignorance of sufficient T2A sources stating the same thing, but then I thought, "all kill" functions properly and it will forever in this way forever on this shard...so i decided not to

[Kraarug]

Does that post say that stablemasters could die in Oct. 2000, or am I reading too far into it?

Specifically:

"The new system benefits over the current system:

If a stablehand dies, you do not lose your pets. "

My point proven... The taming archive clearly states that stable masters became invulnerable in early '99, but this article says that stables will not lose their pets when they die in October '00. I wonder what stable masters could die when they were invulnerable Kraarug...

I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and make all stablemasters killable, and have their pet banks be wipeable. It could be extrapolated from that post that perhaps the stablemasters were not properly made invulnerable?

Some initial benefits of killable stablemasters are:

1) It forces people to go out and re-tame creatures instead of amassing 10 dragons and running with them constantly. It will make the number of creatures carried by tamers lower (and closer to era accurate) since they will not have time to constantly replenish a supply of 10 dragons.

2) Another thread mentions spawnable creatures that were very rare. Lets talk about the Ancient Wyrm which was available through a bug. It would allow us to make the AW a tameable creature, but perhaps limit it to 1 AW serverwide to keep the number of AWs in check with realistic T2A values. If we did this with invulnerable stable masters it is very likely that one person will get an AW, and no one else ever will. In this system it makes it possible/easier to lose the AW (or other rare tameables) so that ownership can cycle.

I can't find Faust's direct response so i'll reply in this quote:

I can't tell you why a player said what he or she said but I can tell you that I know of no exploits that made invulable NPCs killable do you?

I think the case it pretty clear and you are not arguing the fact that OSI made these NPCs invul in 1999. Are you arguing, based upon that one sentence, that invulable NPCs were killable somehow?

To your point Hiram:

Such a situation would be a game changing one and would clearly add an element that was not present during the period of T2A that this Shard is trying to replicate.

All one would have to do is lure most any monster to a stablemaster, if what you are suggesting, and have the kill them to destroy many many pets.

One could also 'town kill' all the stablemasters in the game and wipe out everyones pets.

With all the griefers that played during this era (especailly Matron ) one would think that volumes would have been written about these shardwide exploits if they were even possible back then.

Imagine all the jollys one, so inclined, would have from wiping out all the pets of an OSI production shard.

[Batlin]

Taken from the demo stable script:

on targetobj(object user, object usedon)
{
if(usedon == NULL())
{
return(0x00);
}
if(isHuman(usedon))
{
bark(this, "HA HA HA! Sorry, I am not an inn.");
return(0x00);
}
if(hasScript(usedon, "destcrea"))
{
bark(this, "I can not stable summoned creatures.");
return(0x00);
}
if(!hasObjVar(usedon, "myLoyalty"))
{
bark(this, "That's not tame to anyone!");
return(0x00);
}
if(!hasObjListVar(usedon, "myBoss"))
{
bark(this, "That's not tame to anyone!");
return(0x00);
}
if(!Q42T(usedon, "myBoss", user))
{
bark(this, "That's not your pet!");
return(0x00);
}
if(getMoney(user) < 0x1E)
{
if(!withdrawAndDestroy(user, 0x1E))
{
bark(this, "But thou hast not the funds in thy bank account!");
return(0x00);
}
}
else
{
destroyGeneric(user, 0x0EED, 0x1E);
}
integer Q4Q1 = putMobContainer(usedon, this);
if(!Q4Q1)
{
bark(this, "I am sorry, but my stables are full.");
return(0x00);
}
attachScript(usedon, "petzap");
setObjVar(user, "lastStablemasterUsed", this);
setObjVar(usedon, "isInStables", 0x01);
bark(this, "Very well, thy pet is stabled. Thou mayst recover it by saying 'claim' to me. In one real world week, I shall sell it off if it is not claimed!");
return(0x00);
}

usedon = the pet you are stabling
this = the stablemaster

The pets are stored in a container belonging to the stablemaster, if the stablemaster gets destroyed somehow the mobcontainer belonging to him will be gone too, hence so will your pets.

The petzap scripts that gets attached to the pet is this:

on creation()
{
callback(this, (0x3C * 0x3C * 0x18 * 0x07), 0x91);
return(0x00);
}

on callback<0x91>()
{
deleteObject(this);
return(0x00);
}

It will delete the pet after 604800 seconds aka 7 days.

The "lastStablemasterUsed" that get attached to the player is purely informational is not used once (in any scripts).

[Kraarug]

Great! It shows that pets were localized to a given NPC. I think that part of the arguement should be settled.

Now, just make them Invul and you have an accurate T2A replication.

[Hemperor]

Great! It shows that pets were localized to a given NPC. I think that part of the arguement should be settled.

Now, just make them Invul and you have an accurate T2A replication.

Assumption.

There is no reason to believe that stable masters out of town were invul. First, I would like to know how many of these ACTUALLY existed. I know everyone has their bullshit memories when things like this come up, but that in itself should require evidence. Everyone here has a memory for everything and in my opinion it should count for absolutely nothing.

[Hiram]

wall'o'text

This is what I am saying:

1) The post from the UO news site said that in oct 2000, if a stablemaster died, you would lose all of the pets on it. Therefore

2) There must have been some way for stablemasters to die.

Whatever happened between 99's invuln stablemaster patch, be it an exploit or a removal of the invuln status, or whatever else (who knows), it seems to me that there had to be SOME way to kill the stablemaster, otherwise that would be a non-issue.

I am in no way saying that all stablemasters were certainly killable (althouth I am saying it is possible), nor am I saying how/by what means they were killed.

It would stand to reason that if killing a stablemaster required some sort of criminal flag/direct attack, it would be much tougher to kill them on OSI due to the larger population of people standing around.

[Kraarug]

Here's the line of logic...

Code: Select all

We know that NPC Stablemasters had their aniamals directly attached them them (localized animals).  

We know that NPC Stablemasters were made invul in 1999.

That's all we need to make all NPC Stablemasters both localized AND invul.

/case proven.

If you have evidence to support that:
a) Invul NPC Stablemasters were able to be killed somehow during T2A
and or
b) That any NPC Stablemasters that may or may not have resided outside of a guarded area was coded any different than the rest of them

Then you should post it here because as it stands now it appears the facts below are vetted.

Code: Select all

We know that NPC Stablemasters had their aniamals directly attached them them (localized animals).  

We know that NPC Stablemasters were made invul in 1999.

That's all we need to make all NPC Stablemasters both localized AND invul.

[Mirage]

Let's just make them invul and you give us a way that they can be killed, let us know because I've yet to kill anything invul in my UO career.

[eniave]

Can anyone name a player town in era that had a stable master? This could help

I do not remember any player run stables. I must have missed them on LS.

[MatronDeWinter]

I'm simply not buying this, yes I read the code from the demo posted.

There were stablemasters outside of town on Pacific and Siege, if at any point the master was not invulnerable people would recall from place to place killing every stablemaster in sight (even in town) and EVERYBODY would whine and cry. I never remember such an occurance, if it was at all possible during the years I played OSI (beta-uo:R) someone I know would have certainly done it. I remember killing the stablemasters before they were invulnerable, and they always respawned allowing rival guilds to fetch their pets. This would be a ridiculious change pretty much eliminating the possibility for anyone to ever own a pet again.

[Kraarug]

I'm simply not buying this, yes I read the code from the demo posted.

There were stablemasters outside of town on Pacific and Siege, if at any point the master was not invulnerable people would recall from place to place killing every stablemaster in sight (even in town) and EVERYBODY would whine and cry. I never remember such an occurance, if it was at all possible during the years I played OSI (beta-uo:R) someone I know would have certainly done it. I remember killing the stablemasters before they were invulnerable, and they always respawned allowing rival guilds to fetch their pets. This would be a ridiculious change pretty much eliminating the possibility for anyone to ever own a pet again.

Look at my post above... I specifically said that if this was possible during the era YOU would have done it

I have much faith in you and your evil genius!