You all should be ashamed!

[chumbucket]

Chum is still trying to force us to laugh at his comedy after four years.

But you are the funny one!

[Featheon]

I should like to add: I'm not racist, but I know when everyone else is. And we shouldn't make jokes about Colombine, because someone who is dummer than I will mistake the absurdity for a truth claim. And they hate us for our freedoms.

Shall I go on? The only reason to point a finger is the avoid the one pointing at you. I don't care about people who bitch about the server because I'm not pompous enough to think that I'm so much better. Threads like this are designed to discredit the concerns of others; much like people who yell "troll" in a crowded forum, the idea is that some enlightened group knows better than the rest of us.

[Xandorf]

Thinking about it now, I guess I was a little hasty in thinking of leaving.

Just have to macro in a small. GG!

On a server that has 1000 things right, I guess I can handle one thing wrong.

I'll stay...

[chumbucket]

I should like to add: I'm not racist, but I know when everyone else is. And we shouldn't make jokes about Colombine, because someone who is dummer than I will mistake the absurdity for a truth claim. And they hate us for our freedoms.

I...I...I...uh...

[Millerisfuntoplay]

Its only a matter on time before teph and conan start bombing this thread with porn to get banned once more

[Faust]

Because dying like that was NOT A PART OF THE ERA. Derrick claims era accuracy, but only cares about mechanical accuracy. Does not compute.

We are doing 360 circles here son.

This leads back to my original question.

Why are you up in arms arguing for Derrick to social engineer a fix for this mechanic but not about making afk macroing illegal with which this exploit only affects?

Does not matter if someone used this exploit or not the mechanic is accurate to the era. Only way to make it not a part of the era would be to social engineer it into the server. However, that would be just fine right... but not for another social aspect of the game that this exploit only affects.

[eXcebo]

If it's not ok to social engineer the survival of our characters, then why is it ok to engineer the value of currency?

An inaccurate change was made to save the value of gold. in era, people who knew how to dupe ran the risk of being banned and laid low. but here we socially engineered an artificial economy just to keep gold the dominating currency. (We could have adapted, we could have begun a barter system, or like in era, we would have had a few very rich people and alot of people banned).

In era, if anyone knew how to do this LOS bug they ran the risk of being banned, they kept it secret and didn't use it much.
an inaccurate change here would serve to replicate the policies of era. I.E. ban of paid accounts for bug abuse.

For the sake of the gold, an inaccurate change was made for the sole purpose emulating era policy and economy.
All most of the community is asking for here, is the same consideration for our lives that you give our gold.

[Captain Awesome]

Faust, the two topics are apples and oranges. You are comparing something that happened in era, but was illegal to something that did not happen in era but also would have been illegal. The biggest difference between the two being that macroing happened and the LOS bug did not.

[eXcebo]

^ that being said, I am staying regardless. I am just moving to an L from my tower.

I'm just O.o about choosing to make one change but absolutely against another. even a matching era policy seems to be frowned upon.

[Faust]

Why does a mechanic that existed in game that never happeend matter if someone used it or not?

Nobody knew that magic disruption had a bug that called a validation check for a disruption twice until the actual code was used/analyzed but that doesn't mean it should not exist because nobody knew about it... that sort of logic is extremely flawed. There are many features that we have disccovered in the code that nobody would have known until it was decompiled. Hopping on a horse to refresh stamina was believed to refresh upon saying all follow me which was only half true. Not ONE single person knew it refreshed without saying that so long as it was already in follow mode just like the spell disruption issue.

How do you know nobody used this exploit?

Did you go and ask every single thousand upon thousands of players that played in November '99 if they knew about it? I am definitely not saying it was known but we do not know that for sure with a hundred percent certainty.

[Blaise]

^ that being said, I am staying regardless. I am just moving to an L from my tower.

I'm just O.o about choosing to make one change but absolutely against another. even a matching era policy seems to be frowned upon.

I'll sell you a sweet L right outside Britain to the east.

[Captain Awesome]

I don't know that no one used it, but I've never heard of it and that seems to be the consensus here. If we had some evidence of it happening, I'd quietly step out of this debate. Honestly, this bug isn't the big issue for me, because I don't have a house that is affected by it. What I don't like is the apparent policy on determining era accuracy, which is why I am speaking out. I think there should be some common sense involved in the process. I think boiling the debate down on any mechanical issue to "Did this happen in t2a? No, okay then we probably don't want it." would be a pretty solid way of determining era accuracy.

[Faust]

The policy around determining mechanical accuracy is pretty straight forward and firm in my opinion.

- Game mechanics that are not game breaking will exist on UO Second Age.

Derrick determines what is game breaking and this most certainly is not game breaking.

I think there should be some common sense involved in the process. I think boiling the debate down on any mechanical issue to "Did this happen in t2a? No, okay then we probably don't want it." would be a pretty solid way of determining era accuracy.

Pointed this out previously and will repeat myself.

There was not one single person that knew spell disruption had a bug that would validate twice when checking a magical attack. However, according to your logic that would not be a plausible mechanic since nobody knew about it and such a change would severely ruin pvp increasing the luck ratio two folds by +50%. The list could go on for all the unknowns that has been discovered since decompiling the original game code.

By allowing people to judge if something existed or not is what landed all the rest of the crappy shards in their graves. This shard follows a strict guide line of mechanical accuracy based on what actually existed in code and this mechanic has bene verified to have existed. If you think it's wrong than argue a policy change, not a mechanical accuracy or game breaking change.

[Captain Awesome]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about spell disruption. Please elaborate.

[Faust]

When a player is casting there is a check for the spell to be disrupted when damaged by an attack. Magical attacks would check for spell disruption twice during the process due to a completely unknown bug in the code that was discovered through Batlin's decompilation project of the original code. This is in simple terms meant damage caused by magical attacks had a 50% chance increase towards disrupting spell casting.