UO Second Age

We have instanced events, silver, and rewards and yet we can't make an exception to game-killing mechanics such as "stop for 1 second to hit"? I think we need to think outside of the box and consider the bigger picture, stop obsessing over stuff because we already have events. Why not obsess over how incredibly inaccurate instanced trammel events is?

I say we put swing on the run back in, lol. It works out for the desync issue to, the more you have to "stop" the more annoying desync crap goes on. I found having swing on the run really helped this out.

Mens Rea wrote:What I would ask is why the mini-patch was implemented such a short time after the initial UO:R publish if there if it was not for purposes of fixing an unintended change.

Surely the change would have been implemented in the UO:R publish otherwise?

There is evidence to show a change relating to swing timers and melee combat, and then a remedial patch only a few hours following. I think that is a very strong inference.

Your question delves into issues of software development, and neither of us are authorities on the subject. However, generally speaking, at some point a patch (or in this case a major publish) needs to go out, and it may go out without all of the changes desired, with other changes being pushed out shortly thereafter. It is also possible that this issue was one that they had not been aware of (although unlikely), and they published a fix for it as part of the mini-patches.

As to your second point, there is a strong disconnect between a change involving when your swing evaluates in an animation and whether your swing advances when moving. From what we know of the demo code, the area where changes would need to be made in order to modify the point at which you evaluate your swing in the animation is in a very different location from movement or swing holding code. Because each piece is isolated, it is possible to modify one piece without touching the other pieces, which means that there is no reason to mess with combat code involving movement in the first place. Since that is the case, assuming that any changes were done to the combat movement code, when none were necessary for their other recorded changes, is pure speculation without any support.

Psilo wrote:We have instanced events, silver, and rewards and yet we can't make an exception to game-killing mechanics such as "stop for 1 second to hit"? I think we need to think outside of the box and consider the bigger picture, stop obsessing over stuff because we already have events. Why not obsess over how incredibly inaccurate instanced trammel events is?

I say we put swing on the run back in, lol. It works out for the desync issue to, the more you have to "stop" the more annoying desync crap goes on. I found having swing on the run really helped this out.

One inaccuracy isn't an excuse to include a second inaccuracy. If we were to consider such a position in the first place, there would be a laundry list of things that could be changed because they were "game-killing".

By that reasoning Kaivan, let's look at some of the other UOSA inaccuracies we can cure by using the mini-patch:

1) "All reagents will stack properly"

Reagents on UOSA should not stack properly - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of reagents.

2) "Players will be able to loot monsters killed by poison"

Monsters killed by poison should not be able to be looted on UOSA - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of monsters killed by poison.

3) "Players will be able to steal items from town chests"

Players on UOSA should not be able to steal items from town chests - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of town chests.

However:

4) "Players using melee weapons in combat will now hold their swing until their target is in range. Additionally, the timer that determines melee weapon swing times (combat timer) will now advance as the player is moving. Thus, melee weapon users will no longer be required to stop moving before swinging."

Melee combat is subject to a specific change. We do not know the precise changes to the swing timers they made between the demo and the UO:R publish. However, there is clear evidence that melee combat was changed - whether or not this was part of a larger overhaul which may have touched upon other areas of code relating to melee combat. This remedial patch clearly fixed an unintended change which was implemented with the UO:R publish and this, in my opinion, should make your ears prick up and consider the alternative inference. To my knowledge this anomaly has never been pointed out, nor considered by the UOSA staff.

What I see...

The UO:R update was a HUGE update on weapons and combat systems, including dexterity based swing timers.

Shortly after the UO:R publish, on the same day(Apr 28/00), the mini-patch including a swing timer fix was implemented.

Without data gained from comparing the t2a demo code to the UO:R code.... I would say that it is entirely viable that the mini patch combat fix is in regards to the major UO:R combat patch that precedes it.

Again, being oblivious to code, I would have to say that this matter would fall into a grey contrast and shouldn't be the main influence on such an integral issue.

Mens Rea wrote:By that reasoning Kaivan, let's look at some of the other UOSA inaccuracies we can cure by using the mini-patch:

1) "All reagents will stack properly"

Reagents on UOSA should not stack properly - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of reagents.

It is entirely possible that not all reagents didn't stack properly. Since we don't know which ones, or what issues surrounded them, we can't make such a change.

Mens Rea wrote:2) "Players will be able to loot monsters killed by poison"

Monsters killed by poison should not be able to be looted on UOSA - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of monsters killed by poison.

This is absolutely false. For one, here is the specific portion of the UOR patch note that talks about this subject:

Monster Looting and Fame/Karma
Looting rights for monsters will be based on a point system. The system will track players as they attack a monster, assigning “points” based on the damage they do and the number of times they strike the monster. Bonus “points” will be awarded for both the first strike and the kill shot. These “points” are then used to determine which characters have access to its corpse. Damage and attack totals done by tamed or provoked animals/monsters will count towards the point total of the tamer/bard.

The player with the most points gets to loot the monster automatically. The system then looks for any players who have points equal to or greater than 30% of the top point score.

From this, and the above line item, we can draw two relevant points. First, players were not prevented from looting corpses at all in Feluccia, thus this was a Trammel-specific problem. Second, poison is a non-direct damage spell, and it is clear that non-direct damage damage spells are given special mention as noted in the patch note (provoked creatures, hirelings, pets). Since these two things are clear, it is obvious that this patch note directly effects poison, and that excluding poison - or introducing a bug surrounding poison's effect on looting rights - would warrant such a fix.

Mens Rea wrote:3) "Players will be able to steal items from town chests"

Players on UOSA should not be able to steal items from town chests - even though nothing in the UO:R publish changes the mechanics of town chests.

This is a false dichotomy. We can readily dismiss this issue as a UOR issue because of the body of evidence in support of stealing items outside of chests in town. For example, the T2A Stealing essay from Stratics clearly shows that it was possible to steal items from chests. The same is true of the Rare items page from T2A that notes that some of the items must be stolen from town chests. There are more examples in the newsgroups to support this position I'm sure. The point is that more than anything, the major difference between an inference such as this, and an inference such as one relating to combat is the amount of evidence to back it up. For combat, there is practically no era information to draw upon short of the patch note and the demo code, whereas for just about every other change, there is clear evidence that removes the necessity to make such an inference in the first place.

Mens Rea wrote:However:

4) "Players using melee weapons in combat will now hold their swing until their target is in range. Additionally, the timer that determines melee weapon swing times (combat timer) will now advance as the player is moving. Thus, melee weapon users will no longer be required to stop moving before swinging."

Melee combat is subject to a specific change. We do not know the precise changes to the swing timers they made between the demo and the UO:R publish. However, there is clear evidence that melee combat was changed - whether or not this was part of a larger overhaul which may have touched upon other areas of code relating to melee combat. This remedial patch clearly fixed an unintended change which was implemented with the UO:R publish and this, in my opinion, should make your ears prick up and consider the alternative inference. To my knowledge this anomaly has never been pointed out, nor considered by the UOSA staff.

Again, from what we know of the demo code, and the intended purpose of the patch note itself, any such change to the animation as it relates to hit/miss evaluation would take place in a very different location than changes to movement restrictions and holding your swing. Since these things are very clearly different, exist in different code areas, and no direct and intentional change to swing movement was stated, no logical connection can be made between them.

Kaivan wrote:

Mens Rea wrote: It is entirely possible that not all reagents didn't stack properly. Since we don't know which ones, or what issues surrounded them, we can't make such a change.

As I recall every so often I would pick a black pearl up off the ground that wouldn't stack with others.

Pac wrote:

Kaivan wrote:

Mens Rea wrote: It is entirely possible that not all reagents didn't stack properly. Since we don't know which ones, or what issues surrounded them, we can't make such a change.

As I recall every so often I would pick a black pearl up off the ground that wouldn't stack with others.

Aye. Meat from some creatures like mongbats didn't stack as well.

The lack of (or pending) implementation of other T2A mechanics does not dictate removal of existing mechanics. It's never been said that everything is completely done on UOSA, that's our goal, not our status; that fact is not a basis for removal of existing systems which are believed to be working correctly.

If it is found that the proper stacking of reagents and mongbat meat has become a problem it should certainly be addressed more quickly than planned. There are a host of little things that need to be fixed; at this point though most of those items are as obscure is mongbat meat stacking. Some of the bigger issues such as more proper pet ai will likely be addressed first.

It's good to have conversations like this regarding the swing timer; but I do encourage the prior discussions be read and well digested as Kaivan posted above. This topic has seen much attention, research and discussion over the years.

Kaivan wrote:

Players using melee weapons in combat will now hold their swing until their target is in range. Additionally, the timer that determines melee weapon swing times (combat timer) will now advance as the player is moving. Thus, melee weapon users will no longer be required to stop moving before swinging.

I urge anyone who is interested in why our current mechanics are currently this way to read the two pieces of information. It's pretty important to understand these things in some level of detail in order to understand why things are set up the way they are on UOSA.

Maybe I'm miss-understanding that, but from what I read it looks like it says the timer advances until the target is in range and users don't have to stop moving before the swing goes into effect.

If thats correct, why is it so hard to hit moving targets with a dexxer right now? Shouldn't hits be on the fly as long as you're within range and due for a swing?

That's a UO:R patchnote Hicha ^_^

Mens Rea wrote:That's a UO:R patchnote Hicha ^_^

Hah, I been gone for 5 weeks training, still trying to get spun up on what changed and why my dexxer is suckin. Didn't see that mentioned in his post, mah bad.

There is another thing to consider in regards to T2A accuracy vs fun factor...and that is the various things that can never be era accurate.

For example:
- Razor is not era accurate.
- A server population of all skilled people who know UO is not era accurate.
- Cable modems are not really era accurate...at least not for everyone.
- Three accounts...or rather...three free accounts is not era accurate.

Obviously these are nitpicky and obviously these things could never be 'fixed' but it does bring up a valid argument. If the goal of the server is to provide an exact T2A rule set...then perhaps it is correct the way it is.

However, if the point of the server is to provide a T2A experience then you have to account for things such as connection speed. Why do so few people remember melee combat the way it is? In short, the connection speed of clients could be a big issue. Back in the 56k days you'd have plenty of time for the server to register a hit even while you are chasing someone because of the latency. Fast forward that ruleset to cable modems and you can never land a hit because everyone moves too fast.

For obvious reasons, I am in favor of tweaks to bring back the T2A dexxer experience. Given the strict T2A ruleset + the non-T2A connection speeds + non-T2A razor...its not an accurate experience for a dexer.

I did not expect this discussion to go anywhere but after reading many comments, the above revelations dawned on me. But I guess it boils down to whether we want an accurate T2A ruleset or an accurate experience.

Back in the 56k days you'd have plenty of time for the server to register a hit even while you are chasing someone because of the latency. Fast forward that ruleset to cable modems and you can never land a hit because everyone moves too fast.

To me that sums up the issue. Maybe we do have the correct implementation, but it was a hell of a lot more functional back in the day when the connection speeds/latency allowed for hits to occur. Now, like you said, everyone is too fast for this mechanic and as a result you basically don't see dexers pvping.

i forgot about this thread and now i have a lot of responses to read. thanks management for replying.

Ragancy wrote:

Back in the 56k days you'd have plenty of time for the server to register a hit even while you are chasing someone because of the latency. Fast forward that ruleset to cable modems and you can never land a hit because everyone moves too fast.

To me that sums up the issue. Maybe we do have the correct implementation, but it was a hell of a lot more functional back in the day when the connection speeds/latency allowed for hits to occur. Now, like you said, everyone is too fast for this mechanic and as a result you basically don't see dexers pvping.

Yup, and personally I think this 'issue' is a make or break for this shard. We (the bloodrock) recently found an old AI video on youtbue of us running around. A few people commented how those were really fun PVP days until the shard got all crazy with mods and changes. The simple fact is that a pure dexxer is not competitive here and it drives a lot of people away. Ultimately, the lack of variety will be the downfall.

Given the issue, one of two things should happen:
1. Dexxers should be given an artificial boost (attack on the run) to bring back the true T2A feel.
or
2. We should become era accurate and implement bandwidth limits to effectively force everyone onto a 56k connection.

Without one of these things, we are not era accurate.

It seems apparent that at some point in the t2a era you could swing on the run (as per demo), and at another you had the movement restriction (as per minipach note).

Somewhere along the t2a era timeline, a movement restriction is likely to have been implemented, although an exact date is not apparent.

All I'm saying is... I wouldn't see it as a violation of accuracy ethics if we had either mechanic.

Swinging on the run along with the recent tone down in weapon damage, would in my opinion make for some awesome and exiting pvp... however the tournament ring might all of a sudden feel a bit tight.