UO Second Age

Capitalist wrote:However, I'll leave my definition of trammel for the point of contention and discussion.

Trammel: Any mechanic or location where the game and staff outright protects players from other players.

Though I simply prefer the dictionary definition..

trammel
something that impedes activity, progress, or freedom

Capitalist wrote: I didn't play old UO, and I'm not going to read about it to debate this with you.

That makes me a sad panda

To my knowledge, Derrick added the automated games as a way to mix things up at the time. They were never intended on being here as long as they were. Anyone who's been involved in this on-going debate can (better) name a dozen things that were wrong with them.

On the contrary I remember a time when the "remove events" campaigners wouldn't get heard and Derrick said events aren't going anywhere.

Boomland Jenkins wrote:I don't think people would attend the event if they're losing their own stuff. A good portion of people who attended the old games were new or newish players - players who can't really afford to lose items. For those new players who do attend, they may simply leave all their items in the bank and basically not participate, which eventually leads to one sided fights and a lot of whining as we saw in the past at the old automated games.

If this were the case people would not be participating in the GM triggered events that have been going on since 2013.

The problem with your logic is that you are looking at the old automated events in terms of my counter argument when I am not talking about the old automated events at all. Those should never be reintroduced because they were nothing but an instance based safe haven that extracted players from the world into an isolated dimension with in a dimension.

Again, there is no reason that we could not introduce a revised set of automated events into a real world structure. I also agree that some of the old event concepts can never be reintroduced. However, new revised set of events that would be much better could be.

This goes for PVM and PVP.

Question.. To facilitate Dungeon crawls for PVM what if:

Lord British were to order guards to accompany the dugneon crawlers to a dungeon to help "clean up" the vermin?

This would still allow griefers to grief.. but make it more challenging for the griefer.. should be more fun for both sides..

Would this be something that would be era accurate? Did the guards ever venture out of town to protect the populace?

Faust wrote: Again, there is no reason that we could not introduce a revised set of automated events into a real world structure. I also agree that some of the old event concepts can never be reintroduced. However, new revised set of events that would be much better could be.

As I stated in one of my last replies, we are working on a new set of automated games. I was simply stressing it's not a simple solution like so many people assume it is. You can't just whip up brand new events without feeling it out entirely.

montier wrote:Question.. To facilitate Dungeon crawls for PVM what if:

Lord British were to order guards to accompany the dugneon crawlers to a dungeon to help "clean up" the vermin?

This would still allow griefers to grief.. but make it more challenging for the griefer.. should be more fun for both sides..

Would this be something that would be era accurate? Did the guards ever venture out of town to protect the populace?

I like this accept I think scripting would be a tremendous undertaking. I don't presume to know much about such things, but a couple issues that come to mind:
-Guards only targeting murderers and criminal human players? Otherwise the guards would clear all the mobs.
-What is the range? Seems like a big challenge to configure a dynamic guard zone versus the usual static ones that exist

Maybe they can act more like order guards that don't one shot guard whack people. Beef them up a bit and have one for every member of the crawl. Could possibly be fun times.

Boomland Jenkins wrote:

Faust wrote: Again, there is no reason that we could not introduce a revised set of automated events into a real world structure. I also agree that some of the old event concepts can never be reintroduced. However, new revised set of events that would be much better could be.

As I stated in one of my last replies, we are working on a new set of automated games. I was simply stressing it's not a simple solution like so many people assume it is. You can't just whip up brand new events without feeling it out entirely.

Just to hear that you guys are working on something really helps. Something as simple as a stone/npc at the various arenas where we could "I wish to duel" someone might be nice. Maybe have a menu with options to allow for duels OR team vs team battles (2v2, 3v3, etc.). I don't know the last thing about scripting this stuff into the game, but it seems like it would be fairly simple. That way the matches would be done in the "real world" but could possibly be interfaced into the myUOSA record keeping.

Abyz wrote:

Boomland Jenkins wrote:

Faust wrote: Again, there is no reason that we could not introduce a revised set of automated events into a real world structure. I also agree that some of the old event concepts can never be reintroduced. However, new revised set of events that would be much better could be.

As I stated in one of my last replies, we are working on a new set of automated games. I was simply stressing it's not a simple solution like so many people assume it is. You can't just whip up brand new events without feeling it out entirely.

Just to hear that you guys are working on something really helps. Something as simple as a stone/npc at the various arenas where we could "I wish to duel" someone might be nice. Maybe have a menu with options to allow for duels OR team vs team battles (2v2, 3v3, etc.). I don't know the last thing about scripting this stuff into the game, but it seems like it would be fairly simple. That way the matches would be done in the "real world" but could possibly be interfaced into the myUOSA record keeping.

While we are discussing the possibility of integrating some of the prior events into the real world, please keep in mind that they may not be feasible within the confines of the normal mechanics and won't be seen. Also, if we do incorporate something for dueling, I can assure you that it won't be a stone or phrase of any kind that allows players to begin a duel.

Ya... stones and phrases are very NEA.

Abyz wrote:Ya... stones and phrases are very NEA.

Keep up the good fight Abyz.
But, put it this way, if any type of event is here before 2015, I will give you everything I own.
Even if Boom and Mammoth are working hard, heck even if they said "were going to fix the old auto events and bring em back" it wont happen anytime soon.
But whatever, I lost all faith in it. I hear a rumor or someone says something to me and it gets my hopes up, then they get dashed within 24 hours.
The only thing I ever wanted to see but didnt, was the reason why Derrick thinks they should be gone for good, especially when he said a few weeks ago in irc "I liked the automated events, its just not my decision"
I asked this but never got an answer, does Derrick still "own/run" the server or?

He didnt say it wasnt his decision, he said he wasn't in that position (of being a player)

Ohm wrote:He didnt say it wasnt his decision, he said he wasn't in that position (of being a player)

He said it wasn't up to him.
And by what your sayif ohm, if it was up to us players, then well we already made a decision.
So, yea, again explanation Derrick?

Menkaure wrote:

Ohm wrote:He didnt say it wasnt his decision, he said he wasn't in that position (of being a player)

He said it wasn't up to him.
And by what your sayif ohm, if it was up to us players, then well we already made a decision.
So, yea, again explanation Derrick?

Obviously I'm not Derrick, but my assumption is that a lot of things would be "nice" or "fun" to do in UO, but that alone isn't a valid reason for an update. Some would argue factions would be a great way to add spice to PVP, but factions has absolutely no place on T2A. Some would go on to suggest that stat loss is a terrible system and feel it should be removed - again, not something we can do based on what the shard's goal is.

Derrick is still the owner, but all 5 of us are "equal partners" in decisions being made. This means, ideally, all parties need to be OK with changes/additions to the shard, and those changes/additions need to fit within the image we're try to recreate.

Origin was about creating Worlds. Second Age is about recreating Worlds.

Menkaure wrote:

Ohm wrote:He didnt say it wasnt his decision, he said he wasn't in that position (of being a player)

He said it wasn't up to him.
And by what your sayif ohm, if it was up to us players, then well we already made a decision.
So, yea, again explanation Derrick?

No, thats not what he said. You werent even in IRC when he said it.

He said if he were a player here he would want events also. But he is not in that position.