Boat Blockades. "This must come to an end!"

[JoshuaLee]

hahaha.. the fagpot calling the kettle black.. with your 4-5 posts about allegedly getting ripped off at yew bank mall... lmao. cry us a river newb.

I could care less I got more gold than you. Also I think it's funny that Bigoud deleted his player run vendor threads because I posted that.

I am sorry but if I buy a greater heal keg for 5500, and there are only 5 potions in it, yeah I'm gonna let people know. Most people know your guys shop is dirty anyways, nothing new.

please keep this tread on topic

When you say something like this make sure your actually saying it to the right person. You should be telling Dagon this not me you fool. I have been on this topic 100%, it's the lot of you that keep changing it up.

[Pristiq]

Let's say someone found a way to completely block off lich lords or Brit GY and farm without interruption. I'm sure your reaction would be similar to that of DarkWing's, eh?

People have found a way, it's called dragons. And no my reaction would be no different, if you even look at my posts in this section I am always against any kind of real change to the shard.

*Facepalm*

So if someone found a way to lock the doors to LL and made recalling into it (except thier rune), you would have no issue with the safe farming and the "trammelness" of it all?

[DarkWing]

Let's say someone found a way to completely block off lich lords or Brit GY and farm without interruption. I'm sure your reaction would be similar to that of DarkWing's, eh?

People have found a way, it's called dragons. And no my reaction would be no different, if you even look at my posts in this section I am always against any kind of real change to the shard.

using dragons does not give a player a 100% safe spot to farm resources

so in no way does this compare!

[BlackFoot]

This is quite the conundrum!

[Duke Jones]

Yes, Risk free resource gathering is being used here. Do you think they are also AFK resource gathering as well?

This should be addressed, in my opinion. No question about it. But it's funny when you think about it:

-Ghosting For risk free hunting and recon
- Risk Free Afk skill gain with a "guards" macro in-town
-Risk-reducing Elaborate PVP Macros
-PvP avoidance with a "Recall-as-soon-as-a-red-name-shows-up" Mentality
-And now, these ship blocking for risk-free resource gathering

I hope the Irony of all this doesn't escape you.
The players that WANT to play on a T2A server (that boasts risk and reward gameplay), are basically exploiting the system to trammel-ize the game for themselves.

"This game should be all about no trammel and risk vs reward gameplay, and PVP at any time... except for ME."

[Lothain]

TBH I think it is creative and should be rewarded, not punished. It is on the same level as people putting up bank boats to avoid thieves.

no ... its not .. because other players can still access there bank boxes in these towns ... nothing is being Blocked from other players!

To the thief, your backpack is a resource: why is it being blocked from his resource gathering hand?

Suppose one of those mineable mounds is inside my castle or keep courtyard; I'm blocking it off from other players, and mining in complete and utter safety--should my house be moved?

Come to think of it, land is a resource, and bank boat locations are a resource--should bank boats and houses be removed because they block valuable resources?

UO promotes a certain degree of equality. Unlike many MMO's, you don't have weapons doing damage in a range of 2-1500, or other vast scales of power in equipment. But in other ways the game promotes inequality through industry, innovation, and sometimes just plain luck. This is an example of that inequality.

A lot of this comes down to a prudential decision, because there is no rule- or guidebook saying "Thou shalt not place boats in such a manner to block of a harbor. But my opinion, which I suppose is worth no less than yours, is that the boats harm the shard no more than the guy who got server birth rare X is harming the shard. Really, really: I don't see a relevant difference there.

Re: Duke

You forget to mention that the "Trammelization" to which you refer is due either to 1) the policy of the shard (i.e. afk macroing), and thus not attributable to the players or 2) to players own creativity. You're not a more hardcore T2A player if you don't ever protect yourself--that's stupid. To take the principles of your argument to the extreme, castles would be "Trammie" houses, because you can't be killed in the center of them. T2A, as I see it, is not about "being in danger," but rather it is about allowing you to escape danger only by your wits. This is all I see occurring here.

[Duke Jones]

Fair enough, Lothain. I see what you mean. I am simply pointing out irony and making social observations about players and how they play.

But as for blocking, we know what would happen if the bridge to west brit or the west brit inn, starting player spawn was blocked by an impassible feild of animals. we must ask ourselves if this is a similar situation or not.

And housing might not be a good analogy to draw, as one may only own one house per character, 15 houses MAX. There is no limit to the boats one may own. So what would happen if someone hypothetically took the majority of their wealth and took this boat blocking to a nasty extreme? So much so that they had to have a character constantly running a "recall to key and refresh relative boat" macro?

[Zane]

First, this is not creative. It's been done before.

Second, this is not simply parking a boat on the mountain as was discussed before. This is completely blocking entire sections of the mountains. The difference is that with one, the miners are still at risk of someone coming along and killing them; with the other, the have completely taken a section of the "wild" and made it safe. There's no way for players to polic the behavior of each other as has been the policy. From my understanding, the staff does not want to get involved so long as the players can take care of it themselves. With this, they cannot.

Lastly, era accuracy would prevent this. Players were allowed to park boats on the mountain, they were not allow to create coves on the mountain with multiple boats. I know these rules, I did both on OSI.



PS- I am not against players staking claim to something, it's no different then houses and such, but this wreaks of the old tents in front of houses thing. Changes were made to housing to prevent this, but the only thing OSI could do to prevent this sort of thing with boats was to police behavior.

[DarkWing]

you didnt complain when that same cove (at least one side of it) was completely blocked last week, for a number of weeks..

guess it made these guys pretty happy that the boats finally moved so they could take over

can't be everywhere, all the time

we patrol the sea's as Pirates ... but it is a very Large area to patrol!

[Lothain]

First: It may have been done before, but not here. At the very least it was unexpected--otherwise, wouldn't others have placed boats within that cove already? I don't think you can honestly deny that this is a "creative" use of UO's limited means of affecting the environment.

Second: There is no backing for the principle that "If a player's behavior makes that player safe to X degree, that behavior should be curbed." Again: mineable mound w/in keep or courtyard, etc.

Lastly: Derrick has, afaik, consistently distinguished between accurate mechanics and accurate policy. This would fall squarely in the realm of policy. While changes to mechanical accuracy have been quite rigid, attempts to recreate policy accuracy have not been consistent, and I don't think they're intended to be.

Granted, there are some behaviors which are possible with important aspects of the game, which Derrick has interfered with: i.e. taming 1500 polar bears and blocking off Brit bank. But some behaviors that interfere with the game have not been curbed: say, having a drop candelabra macro, or s/t. The question is: is the creation of these harbors on the actionable, or inactionable side of that line?

In light of the fact that there are copious places to mine, and not too many miners, I frankly think the boats should be left. I'm not asserting that as absolute truth; ultimately, it's Derrick's choice and I don't know how much further this argument can really go.

[DarkWing]

In light of the fact that there are copious places to mine, and not too many miners, I frankly think the boats should be left. I'm not asserting that as absolute truth; ultimately, it's Derrick's choice and I don't know how much further this argument can really go.

this isn't an issue of just being able to mine in this area ...

any other place in this world (other than courtyards) you must be weary of other players interupting your resource gathering.

Player intervention is what this game is all about ... by blocking off these coves, the rest of us players can no longer intervene ... and keep these players honest, (make sure no afk macroing is going one)
There Be Pirates in them Thar Seas!!!

[Duke Jones]

Also, it may not hurt to note that regardless of the player(s) in question are mining risk free, This area of the map is INACCESSIBLE whether they are logged in or not, and it will remain that way. All they have to do is spend less than 5 min refreshing the boats once a week.

What if the boat entrance to T2A or popular SOS fishing spots were barricaded by a line or group of boats?

[DarkWing]

What if the boat entrance to T2A or popular SOS fishing spots were barricaded by a line or group of boats?

a good point ... if this is allowed .. where will it end?

speaking of T2A ... isn't Titan Beach totally blocked off by boats as well?

but at least there are runes to the beaches out there

[Zane]

It hasn't been done here? Perhaps it's because some of us were under the impression that it wouldn't be allowed. It certainly was part of previous discussions... so once again, it's not creative. Honestly, if others thought this was legit and would be allowed, it would have happened long before this.


I understand the difference between mechanics and policy, but in this case policy was a result of mechanics. Boats were moved because they weren't able to change the mechanics (like they did when people used housing to block off areas) that didn't screw up other things.


As far as players policing behavior, that's pretty much believed to be the general policy to my knowledge. Nearly every time a discussion has come up regarding player actions/behavior, it's what is typically cited as reasons for staff doing/not doing something. i.e.: afk macroing, players who don't like it can take care of it (yes they take risks and penalties, but they can take care of it).
Simply stated, this is the sort of thing that flies in the face of the hands off/players police themselves policies.
(If this is not the general belief/policy about player behavior, then there's a lot of discussions I've seen that need to be revisited).


This doesn't really effect me right now, but it sets a bad precedent. It also sets a double standard for miners and tamers.

[nickhimself]

Didn't Derrick have to remove a whole crap load of animals from the west britain bridge so people could get into town after some rogue tamer blocked it off?

If that received gm interaction, why doesn't this?