Combat changes needed (Archery)

[Silverfoot]

There are things on this server that were implimented after 'November 1999'

I see people say this sometimes. Do you have some examples?

[Mikel123]

The "pvp" population constantly overestimates it's size and importance to a shard. My guess is 10%. A very vocal, active 10% of the shard. A 10% that deserves accuracy like everyone else. But at the end of the day... 10%.

[Faust]

The UO Demo is just not a good place to pull all of the mechanics from. I remember it being way different even back then.

How would you know? Have you ever looked at the code yourself? Do you understand how reverse engineering works? Having the intitial source to any reverse engineering process is a treasure trove that any programmer would dream to have if they were handed the task. It's quite annoying when I see people making comments like this here. We don't take the demo as 'final' say when it comes to the game mechanics. It's a process that you build from based on the original code taking a step by step procedure utitlizing patches and other information. This approach is definitely better than reading a patch or guide, and guessing how to code it.

A perfect '99 replica would be to take the exact original code from the demo and fixing/patching it as Batlin has stated many times over. We have actually done it many times now even using the same original server code to allow players to log into it. Taking steps like this is much better than going backwards with an emulation package(RunUO) that simply tried to code the latest version of Ulimta Online to the best of their knowledge. The staff over there never built their code off any foundation that was originally coded by OSI.

I think this is why the Population is suffering. It could easily double with the right implimentations/fixes. ( I know at least 100 PvP'rs that would play this server if they agreed more with some of the mechanics).

The PvP population ceases to exist.

No, if this was the case than both IPY and Divinity would not have had a net loss of a 1000 players in less than a year. The pvp and game mechanics in general at both shards was crap and it's a horrible emulation of the era that is utterly despicable at best. The only reason people played is because of a population and that's a fact. If the pvp was so great the shard would not have lost so many players under any circumstances.

[Dagon]

There are things on this server that were implimented after 'November 1999'

I see people say this sometimes. Do you have some examples?

The November 23 patch is past our timeframe.

Potion Kegs Nov 23 1999
Rune Books Nov 23 1999
Skill Management Nov 23 1999
Co-owners Nov 23 1999

are the big ones

As i've stated other places we should probably be removing co-owners

Runebooks are only very slightly after our targeted timeframe of May to Nov 1999.

I concur on these two issues and also house co-owners are slightly out of our target timeframe, but still not completely out of era.

so coowners should be removed, even though runebooks are only very slightly after our targeted time frame, but neither are completely out of era.... theres a whole lot of back and forth on the subject.

i say leave anything we currently have from the Nov23 area alone instead of picking and choosing.

[Izual]

How would you know?

Trust me i'm not trying to dog what the UOSA dev team is trying to accomplish. They are doing great, and the UODemo is a good source..

However I keep hearing 'UODemo this' and 'UODemo that' and I played the UODemo and I remember a lot of the gameplay being different from LS.

The PvP population ceases to exist.

I never said IPY/Divinity were a huge success. At no point did I say the mechanics were right. Those shards babied PvP mechanics. And most of them knew that. But they had nowhere to play UO so they ended up getting used to that play-style and now it has tattered their brain.

I said the players of those servers would play here if the PvP existed on this server.. Which it doesn't..
So something is wrong.

[hectorc2w]

ipy and div failed not because it wasnt accurate or mechanic sucked but because there was no player control at all, bad staff and no direction. Here on UOSA you have player control to a certain level (stat loss), great staff that dosnt play the goddamn game that would corrupt them and a direction (accuracy of an era).

If ipy/div did have these, they woudnt of failed.

[Silverfoot]

There are things on this server that were implimented after 'November 1999'

I see people say this sometimes. Do you have some examples?

The November 23 patch is past our timeframe.

Potion Kegs Nov 23 1999
Rune Books Nov 23 1999
Skill Management Nov 23 1999
Co-owners Nov 23 1999

are the big ones

As i've stated other places we should probably be removing co-owners

Runebooks are only very slightly after our targeted timeframe of May to Nov 1999.

I concur on these two issues and also house co-owners are slightly out of our target timeframe, but still not completely out of era.

so coowners should be removed, even though runebooks are only very slightly after our targeted time frame, but neither are completely out of era.... theres a whole lot of back and forth on the subject.

i say leave anything we currently have from the Nov23 area alone instead of picking and choosing.

None of those are after "November 1999."

[Dagon]

None of those are after "November 1999."

Do you read ANYTHING?

all of those items are Nov 23 patch, Derrick says the Nov 23 patch is past our time frame. therefore they should all be removed if co-owners are going to be removed.

[Silverfoot]

None of those are after "November 1999."

Do you read ANYTHING?

all of those items are Nov 23 patch, Derrick says the Nov 23 patch is past our time frame. therefore they should all be removed if co-owners are going to be removed.

You're not understanding, people want to include changes that happened in early 2000 or at the very least AFTER the November 23rd, 1999 patch, because they claim there are other things on this shard from that time period. As far as I know, there is nothing on this server that is from a patch later than Nov. 23rd, 1999. So yes, we can argue the merits of whether things from the late November patch should be here or not, the point is, definitely nothing past that time is here.

Before you start making accusations make sure you understand the post you are responding to.

[Dagon]

potato, potatoe. or w/e.

you are limiting your comments to strictly after nov23, whereas i'm pointing out things including nov23, which is past our time frame as stated by Derrick. i really have no interest in looking up things past nov23 to see if we have anything or not. but i can certainly do that.

[nightshark]

potato, potatoe. or w/e.

you are limiting your comments to strictly after nov23, whereas i'm pointing out things including nov23, which is past our time frame as stated by Derrick. i really have no interest in looking up things past nov23 to see if we have anything or not. but i can certainly do that.

every time i see your sig from the corner of my eye, i think the corpse of r- is a bladespirit you're tabbed in to

[Eaglestaff]

Id be all for bumping the "target date" forward to include that archery patch so long as Its still T2A. If runebooks and skill locks are from a patch that is after the target date and they are not going to be taken out then we should at least make it more clear what the target date really is. We should stop saying we are targeting one date then picking and choosing features that were implemented afterwords. How long after the supposed target date was this patch that improved archery put in anyway?

Also, in case its beign discussed, I am no way in favor of taking out runebooks and especially skill locks. My god it sucked when i got my magery all the way up to 98.9 then they came out and said "Oh by the way we are going to make you have to take Eval now if you want to do any damage". I finally gave in to macrooing my eval up knowing full well that it was going to cost me hard earned points in magery. I looked at it the next morning and my magery was 94.6, SUCKED! Yes I remember the exact numbers. Bad beat.

As far as co-Owners and housing... housing in general is messed up Imo. Why is there so little housing room on a shard with 200-300 people playing at a time? Is it era accurate to have 30-40 people owning half the real estate? Thats what it seems like with so many empty houses that are just there because you can have 5 houses on an account and multiple accounts. If there is any benefit to the shard from this please enlighten me. Ive been looking to upgrade my living situation and I don't feel like paying multiple times what a deed costs especially to people who just went around buying up all the space and monopolizing the real estate market.

[Faust]

The original posters initial response uses a link for an upcoming update. The contents with in this design update was actually published during the UOR patch itself. People should take these deisgn updates into consideration when trying to prove something before hand. Not to mention most of these pre-updates that appear before the UOR era are past our cutoff date to begin with.

[Derrick]

We do plan to fix the housing discrepancies. Moving to a later date than Nov 1999 forces into the new housing system, which I personally don't want any part of. I recognize that I don't play, put to me those housing changes are just contrary to T2A, primarily in the limitation to hording vast amounts of useless junk.

We have archery working flawlessly in the new combat system and I believe that anyone looking forward to the archery changes will be very pleased. This was relatively easy to do as there were virtually no changes to archery since pre-T2A. Melee weapons however changes substantially, and this is what we are currently hung on. While the functionality is very different between these two, they are both part of the same unified system, so we cannot split off archery and fix it any sooner, it all has to go in together.

[fooka03]

Removing runebooks seems like an idiotic thing to do just for the sake of ACCURACY. Technically they're still accurate to T2A (just outside of the timeframe as Derrick said) but removing them would accomplish what? They're still stealable/lootable so no biggie there, but how about the rune libraries everywhere?

So let's see, 16 runes per book, multiplied by how many books in a standard library, multiplied by the number of libraries, PLUS all the private libraries equals... jeeze we'll need a new hard drive on the server just to handle that! It's one of those things where having them in doesn't really affect game play (my stance on this would be completely different if they were newbied/blessed) but provides a massive performance tweak which would otherwise lengthen the already long save times. Let that one go people, it's going to hurt more than it'll ever help.

That's the luxury of having a shard like this, we can shoot for a target date but we can also tweak some things to behave like they did in other parts of the era but provide a basic performance upgrade, or playability in some cases, which would otherwise harm the overall function and enjoyment of the shard.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm really looking forward to seeing how this will affect the effectiveness of archer pk's as well as piracy and archer dexxers. I had an archer character on OSI which I would use for dragon slaying, always a good time.