Swing on the run (dexing)

[Kaivan]

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.

While the point regarding connection speed limits during T2A is a valid point, the goal of UOSA is not to provide an era accurate experience, but to provide - as close as is humanly possible - era accurate mechanics. This is based on the simple fact that we cannot, under any circumstances, reproduce era experiences, because the experiences varied from person to person.

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.

The point you bring up is the "anomaly" that I mentioned a few posts earlier. Given the information that is available on what mechanics existed during the era, we chose the latter of the two (the UOR patch note) because of the stability that it brings to combat. Early test center implementations of the combat patch showed that using the demo version of combat (in so much as you would swing on the run, but would not hold your swing), resulted in nearly inoperable PvP combat across the board. This is about as descriptive as I can get without going into much higher detail, but suffice to say, swinging on the run would is the worse of our available options.

[Ronk]

While the point regarding connection speed limits during T2A is a valid point, the goal of UOSA is not to provide an era accurate experience, but to provide - as close as is humanly possible - era accurate mechanics. This is based on the simple fact that we cannot, under any circumstances, reproduce era experiences, because the experiences varied from person to person.

That is a pity. Though I in no way suggest that it would be an attempt to recreate each persons experience from memory, but instead, the overall t2a experience.


- Paid accounts (to a lesser extent a single account)
- 56k modems
- Slow computers
- No Razor/advanced macros
- Noobs who don't have exact guides to do everything.
- New client with things such as last target, targeting, sticky bars, etc.

The above would all be true for a large majority of all T2A players and without the above you will never have accurate era mechanics. As much as the hard rules may seem like accurate mechanics, those are hard rules were designed around the technology of the time and they worked only because of the technology of the time.

Because the above aspects do not exist anymore, no one here is playing the true T2A mechanics. And because of this, a large segment of the game is pointless and inaccurate. The simple fact is that melee combat as it is in T2A may be correct 'on paper' but it is not correct and it is not T2A combat.

While its true that T2A was the era of the hally mage, it is not true that one hally mage on a horse could win against 2-3 dexxers 99% of the time. Connection speed alone ensures this.

[Malaikat]

While the point regarding connection speed limits during T2A is a valid point, the goal of UOSA is not to provide an era accurate experience, but to provide - as close as is humanly possible - era accurate mechanics.

Perhaps the goal of the shard should be reevaluated...

This is based on the simple fact that we cannot, under any circumstances, reproduce era experiences, because the experiences varied from person to person.

This may be true in some regards, but it is most certainly false in others. I mean, it's not like I experienced a balanced shard while someone else experienced the same shard except full of tank mages.

Edit:

And another thing. It seems as though a great deal of people here enjoy circular reasoning. Whenever someone mentions tourneys (and other items) being inaccurate, they're met with the, "oh, well get rid of your DLS and razor because those are inaccurate too", line of thinking. Then in the same breath those same people will swear on their grave that the goal of the shard is to be as accurate as possible. Is it or isn't it?

[Kaivan]

While the point regarding connection speed limits during T2A is a valid point, the goal of UOSA is not to provide an era accurate experience, but to provide - as close as is humanly possible - era accurate mechanics.

Perhaps the goal of the shard should be reevaluated...[/auote]
That decision would be dependent on Derrick, although I don't suspect that such a change will be made.

This is based on the simple fact that we cannot, under any circumstances, reproduce era experiences, because the experiences varied from person to person.

This may be true in some regards, but it is most certainly false in others. I mean, it's not like I experienced a balanced shard while someone else experienced the same shard except full of tank mages.

Balance is mainly a matter of perception, and perceptions change with time. This is part of why we can't re-create any experiences.

Edit:

And another thing. It seems as though a great deal of people here enjoy circular reasoning. Whenever someone mentions tourneys (and other items) being inaccurate, they're met with the, "oh, well get rid of your DLS and razor because those are inaccurate too", line of thinking. Then in the same breath those same people will swear on their grave that the goal of the shard is to be as accurate as possible. Is it or isn't it?

Don't let the responses of a few players dictate what you believe the staff think about this issue. Derrick has pointed out that he agrees with the inaccuracy of events, and I also disagree with events from a mechanical standpoint.

[Malaikat]

Balance is mainly a matter of perception, and perceptions change with time. This is part of why we can't re-create any experiences.

Again, I would have to respectfully disagree. Balance is objective. Something either is or is not, regardless of how it's perceived. Mechanics can change over time, making something more or less balanced...

Regardless, the behaviors of a collective community will, and certainly have, reflected what their perception is. And they perceive the mechanics to be unbalanced, heavily in favor of tank mages and to the peril of dexers and archers.

[Matty]

funny that malaikat is posting in here. i actually killed him in town the other day on a tank mage that has no wrestling. and he is a pretty good dexer. i've finally caught up and read everything and while the mechanics now make sense (thanks gms) i still think the other mechanics make more sense as far as accuracy goes. i know i'm not a genius programmer like some of you and i'm not denying this minipatch was implimented at some time, but i do think it would be just as, if not more era accurate to bring swing on the run back. dexing is a dying breed. i remember seeing a good amount of dexers before SOTR was patched out. that in itself is inaccurate. all i'm saying is i'd really like upper management to consider bringing it back. this shard would thrive.

[Ronk]

all i'm saying is i'd really like upper management to consider bringing it back. this shard would thrive.

This is right on the money. We can debate accuracy and logic loops all day but in the end you are never going to have perfect accuracy due to many aspects. Thus it boils down to what is good for the shard.

And while one could argue that one tweak means you gotta have others, thats not true. This is a make or break issue thatll utimately determine if a large percent of players (who hvent already left) will stay or go. As noted, weve already lost a huge chunk of dexxers.

[Matty]

all i'm saying is i'd really like upper management to consider bringing it back. this shard would thrive.

This is right on the money. We can debate accuracy and logic loops all day but in the end you are never going to have perfect accuracy due to many aspects. Thus it boils down to what is good for the shard.

And while one could argue that one tweak means you gotta have others, thats not true. This is a make or break issue thatll utimately determine if a large percent of players (who hvent already left) will stay or go. As noted, weve already lost a huge chunk of dexxers.

i think we can still be era accurate and save the dexer. something is staring us right in the face and we don't know exactly what it is. i urge a closer look and hopefully change in either mini-heal or SOTR in the future.

[Roser]

SOTR would definitely benefit the shard, and I think that its tough to argue that it wouldn't.

The question I have for staff is, do you think it would bring in more population if SOTR was re-implemented?

Bonus: IPY's online count is dwindling, you couldn't pick a better time to implement SOTR. It would be such a steal

[Malaikat]

funny that malaikat is posting in here. i actually killed him in town the other day on a tank mage that has no wrestling. and he is a pretty good dexer.

Kind of an ironic compliment, considering I couldn't kill a 0 wrestle mage in town... Maybe if I could SOTR, it would have ended differently?

Enjoy that +10 double axe of vanq, btw.

[Kaivan]

Balance is mainly a matter of perception, and perceptions change with time. This is part of why we can't re-create any experiences.

Again, I would have to respectfully disagree. Balance is objective. Something either is or is not, regardless of how it's perceived. Mechanics can change over time, making something more or less balanced...

We could argue over this until the cows come home. Balance itself means different things to different people.

Regardless, the behaviors of a collective community will, and certainly have, reflected what their perception is. And they perceive the mechanics to be unbalanced, heavily in favor of tank mages and to the peril of dexers and archers.

Regardless of the current community will with regards to balance, UOSA attempts to strive for an objective reflection of the mechanics as they existed during late T2A, not what a majority of players consider balanced.

all i'm saying is i'd really like upper management to consider bringing it back. this shard would thrive.

This is right on the money. We can debate accuracy and logic loops all day but in the end you are never going to have perfect accuracy due to many aspects. Thus it boils down to what is good for the shard.

And while one could argue that one tweak means you gotta have others, thats not true. This is a make or break issue thatll utimately determine if a large percent of players (who hvent already left) will stay or go. As noted, weve already lost a huge chunk of dexxers.

Again, it is not reasonable to suggest that because of external forces, we should modify internal mechanics.

all i'm saying is i'd really like upper management to consider bringing it back. this shard would thrive.

This is right on the money. We can debate accuracy and logic loops all day but in the end you are never going to have perfect accuracy due to many aspects. Thus it boils down to what is good for the shard.

And while one could argue that one tweak means you gotta have others, thats not true. This is a make or break issue thatll utimately determine if a large percent of players (who hvent already left) will stay or go. As noted, weve already lost a huge chunk of dexxers.

i think we can still be era accurate and save the dexer. something is staring us right in the face and we don't know exactly what it is. i urge a closer look and hopefully change in either mini-heal or SOTR in the future.

Mini-heal is unarguably correct, and until concrete era-evidence appears, swings are as accurate as we can make them.

SOTR would definitely benefit the shard, and I think that its tough to argue that it wouldn't.

The question I have for staff is, do you think it would bring in more population if SOTR was re-implemented?

Bonus: IPY's online count is dwindling, you couldn't pick a better time to implement SOTR. It would be such a steal

There are many other changes that would 'benefit' the shard in addition to swinging on the run. It is no more reasonable to consider those changes as it is to consider the removal of movements restrictions, regardless of the perceived effect they will have on the population.

[Ronk]

Again, it is not reasonable to suggest that because of external forces, we should modify internal mechanics.

Ah, well, perhaps the main page is a little misleading then, or perhaps vague is less offensive way of putting it.

"Second Age is the most accurate emulation of the UO: T2A era online today."

Emulation is 'To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.'

Both external and internal forces IS what made the T2A era what it was. And this is what I thought the shard was attempting to emulate. I now see I was mistaken.

[Kaivan]

Again, it is not reasonable to suggest that because of external forces, we should modify internal mechanics.

Ah, well, perhaps the main page is a little misleading then, or perhaps vague is less offensive way of putting it.

"Second Age is the most accurate emulation of the UO: T2A era online today."

Emulation is 'To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.'

Both external and internal forces IS what made the T2A era what it was. And this is what I thought the shard was attempting to emulate. I now see I was mistaken.

This is nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack, and is entirely baseless in that context. First off, UOSA is the most accurate emulation of T2A in existence, unless one has appeared that we aren't aware of. Second, using your own definition (despite the existence of other appropriate definitions), an emulation is to approach or attain equality with. For UOSA, reaching the same quality is exceedingly unlikely, but we still attempt to approach it as best as possible within the limitations we have set.

Finally, external mechanics are not only nearly impossible to emulate in the first place, but it is well known that the goal of UOSA is to replicate mechanical accuracy, of which connection speed, computer speed, and knowledge are not a part of.

[tanmits]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We've gotten off topic. This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy since I think Mens and Rose have made compelling cases that the said mini-patch note is not at all decisive on what preceded it. Why is this change anything but arbitrary considering the detriment it has been to server balance? (The extension to this question is, if it's arbitrary, why not change it back?)

[Mens Rea]

Let me break it down for you boys.

There are a time tested set of arguments that are inherently invalid on this forum. I say inherently invalid because they do not engage with the stated goal of the shard, and that is to be an accurate reflection of the T2A era - with certain qualifications:

1 - "The change I am suggesting will bring people to the shard."
2 - "The change I am suggesting is more fun."
3 - "The change I am suggesting is just as inaccurate/more accurate than another aspect of the shard which is inaccurate."
4 - "The change I am suggesting is more balanced."
5 - "The change I suggest is accurate because it is my recollection." (Although, admittedly, this has worked for me before a few times long in the past - and in fact one of my recollections which was relied on was completely wrong.)
6 - "This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy..." - tanmits (above)

I concede that there are no defined rules as to all the aforementioned "qualifications" to accuracy and why they are included. We see it over and over again on these forums - runebooks, events, etc. The reality is that the goal is of course accuracy, so if you are concerned about accuracy then there is no point arguing that a certain threshold of accuracy has been overstepped therefore this should justify further inaccuracy. It just takes the shard *futher* away from the shard's intended goal so the argument falls flat - it's time to give it up.

The comments made by Rose and I on this topic give a good example of how you can achieve your suggested changes on this shard. I have personally achieved many, many changes to this shard - sometimes having to rely on creative arguments to at least prove the matter beyond what the counter-argument suggests. There are grey areas. This topic is not a closed subject - that is clear. There are tonnes of resources out there which are not visited/revisted for every single change/subject which is brought up on the shard. Nobody had ever raised the issue that the mini-patch may have been remedial due to it's timing.

To conclude, I give my prescribed format for valid arguments in the context of this shard, these forums, and the subjects on which we discuss:

I suggest change xxxx, it is accurate because yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) and because of yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) the current system should be changed to xxxx.

It's really very simple:

xxxx = (yyyy ≠ (1,2,3,4,5,6))

And as an extra for experts:

xxxx - yyyy ≠ 1,2,3,4,5,6