blessed item bug

[Jimi[DF]]

Where does it say this? I saw a t2a patch note mentioned something about blessed items taking damage, but that says nothing about whether they break or not. As far as I know, blessed items here do take damage, they just don't break.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... b641471db5

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... da1b29414d

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... 08ab753917

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... dda0d23ee4

(proof masks break in this one)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... 7a7d4b9130

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.game ... 56fae85abb

Clothing Bless Deed

* Selecting the clothing bless deed will place a deed in your backpack.
* The deed can be used on any article of clothing (such as tunics, boots, hats, etc.)
* After double-clicking the deed, target an article of clothing. Once targeted, the clothing will become blessed (meaning it cannot be stolen or looted).
* Blessed clothing can still take damage (from maces for example).

Just because it says "[blessed clothing] can still take damage", and does not say "and will break", does not mean that blessed clothing will not break.

Several UOSA-player accounts detailing the breaking of blessed items can be viewed here..
http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic. ... ack#p47694

Not that I would trust anything 1/2 of you guys say, but the evidence is significant.

I wore blessed black sandals from the time i got a clothing bless deed for a Christmas event until i quit in early 2001. They never broke. Always pvped in them, even asked a gm when i first blessed them if they would break. He told me that they will take damage but would not break. All those posts are not legitimate sources, and are in fact later then the T2A era. The fact is the patch notes say they will take damage which is true, but they would not break during the T2A era.
But I would like to say that clothing bless deeds were way more common in T2A and people did bless things other then colored sandals, regular colored animal masks were also a very popular item to bless, but i never had one so i can not say for sure if they break or not. But sandals for sure did not break during t2a this is an absolute fact.

[MatronDeWinter]

All equipable armor/clothing refers to a specific percentage of the body, and each item takes damage based on that percentage. This is why Chests break before gorgets etc..

It is entirely possible that Sandals (not just blessed ones) could be such a low percentage that the liklihood of them breaking is extremely low, or they may not take damage at all. Though I strongly disagree with this, I will at least consider that as a possibility.

However, there is definitive evidence that Masks (among other things) would take damage and break.

[Freeza]

All equipable armor/clothing refers to a specific percentage of the body, and each item takes damage based on that percentage. This is why Chests break before gorgets etc..

It is entirely possible that Sandals (not just blessed ones) could be such a low percentage that the liklihood of them breaking is extremely low, or they may not take damage at all. Though I strongly disagree with this, I will at least consider that as a possibility.

However, there is definitive evidence that Masks (among other things) would take damage and break.

Actually, Sandals somehow wound up taking decent amounts of damage. I had 3 Black Blessed sandals, 1 of them was bout to break and the 2 others looked pretty worn or whatever the term was. I would then always de-equip them before fighting a macer because I was told they could break.

My memory is fuzzy but someone I used to play with on Great lakes named Mongoose had a pair of black blessed. After a macing fight further down the road he had noticed they had disappeared from his paper doll. We are pretty sure they had broken. It was to a GM war mace.

[MatronDeWinter]

I had a pair of black sandals, and a pair of blessed blue sandals break. Not to mention countless blessed plain dresses. I think it's silly to deny that the break on the grounds that "you have no proof they did break".

I look at it from an object-oriented standpoint.

If the base item (clothing) can break, and blessed items are of the same type, (not to mention the patch still says they take damage), then they must also break. Why would OSI even mention that the items will still take damage if they don't break?

[Derrick]

Sandals would not normally break because whenever a body location is hit, the highest ar item in that location takes the damage. Shoes and Legs (and waist I think) are the same body location, so unless you were only wearing sandals below the waist, sandals would not lose duability. For example, pants have 4 ar, and sandals have 3.

[Freeza]

Sandals would not normally break because whenever a body location is hit, the highest ar item in that location takes the damage. Shoes and Legs (and waist I think) are the same body location, so unless you were only wearing sandals below the waist, sandals would not lose duability. For example, pants have 4 ar, and sandals have 3.

I believe when I was a mage in t2a, I had a black bandanna blessed, black blessed sandals and a black kilt. With that equipment on, the sandals would then take substantial damage correct?

[Derrick]

I believe when I was a mage in t2a, I had a black bandanna blessed, black blessed sandals and a black kilt. With that equipment on, the sandals would then take substantial damage correct?

Well kilt and sandals both have the same AR, and it looks that the sandals do have priority over the kilt in that scenario when both items are new, however as the durability of the sandals drops, the kilt becomes the better protector. Essentially as long as you had any other clothing on below the waist that wasn't battered up it would protect a battered old pair of sandals; but it's still risky, as the kilt wore down it would go below the AR of the sandals.

[potamus]

http://wiki.uosecondage.com/?title=1999_Patch_Notes:

"Treasure maps and more! Jan 19 1999 3:05PM
Tame firebreathers will no longer breathe fire at bystanders."

lol, I love this game.

[MatronDeWinter]

Great, sounds like these items should break in the name of era-accuracy.

[Mirage]

I'm pretty sure they just lost durability, but never broke.....regardless there's a lot of items that people have acquired with trophies that were either CBDs or items blessed with CBDs.

[Mirage]

I had a pair of black sandals, and a pair of blessed blue sandals break. Not to mention countless blessed plain dresses. I think it's silly to deny that the break on the grounds that "you have no proof they did break".

I look at it from an object-oriented standpoint.

If the base item (clothing) can break, and blessed items are of the same type, (not to mention the patch still says they take damage), then they must also break. Why would OSI even mention that the items will still take damage if they don't break?

Because the items would lose durability, making weapons/armor useless so people couldn't just bless a suit and weapon and be good forever, but not break (since blessing something would be next to useless if all items did).

[MatronDeWinter]

I had a pair of black sandals, and a pair of blessed blue sandals break. Not to mention countless blessed plain dresses. I think it's silly to deny that the break on the grounds that "you have no proof they did break".

I look at it from an object-oriented standpoint.

If the base item (clothing) can break, and blessed items are of the same type, (not to mention the patch still says they take damage), then they must also break. Why would OSI even mention that the items will still take damage if they don't break?

Because the items would lose durability, making weapons/armor useless so people couldn't just bless a suit and weapon and be good forever, but not break (since blessing something would be next to useless if all items did).

I know 100% that blessed weapons broke, why would clothing be any different.

If making it so that blessed items do not break is to facilitate the silver/trophy system just admit it. Don't claim it as accurate. I see no reason why these items should not break.

[Arsen]

u have to check the datalog or anything else. u will see there was something wrong. derrick thats extreme up. i know you have the chance to see what happend plz...

[Jimi[DF]]

I had a pair of black sandals, and a pair of blessed blue sandals break. Not to mention countless blessed plain dresses. I think it's silly to deny that the break on the grounds that "you have no proof they did break".

I look at it from an object-oriented standpoint.

If the base item (clothing) can break, and blessed items are of the same type, (not to mention the patch still says they take damage), then they must also break. Why would OSI even mention that the items will still take damage if they don't break?

I find it strange with all the lobbying you have been doing about blessed items being broken you negleted to mention you had items break. Regardless I talked to a GM on Pacific in early 99' and he told me they would not break, and guess what, they never did. You could do armslore on them and see that they were extremely worn but they never did break. Why would they mention that blessed items take damage? Because they did take damage. Why wouldn't they just say blessed items would break? They didn't because they don't break.

[MatronDeWinter]

Regardless I talked to a GM on Pacific in early 99' and he told me they would not break, and guess what, they never did. You could do armslore on them and see that they were extremely worn but they never did break.

You must be mistaken, or the GM was wrong.

Why would they mention that blessed items take damage? Because they did take damage. Why wouldn't they just say blessed items would break? They didn't because they don't break.

Okay then, using your logic as a reference,
I talked to a GM on Pacific in early 99' and he told me that blessed sandals would give me 10 additional stealth steps. The patch notes do not say that they don't give 10 additional stealth steps, so why would they not?

I think you will find this link helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance