Patch 77 - December 24, 2008: Spells, Pathfinding, Stealing

[egamretsam]

Damn it, I quit UO in 1999 because of these changes to stealing.... however, I vividly recall these changes coming in with the introduction of Fellucca and Trammel. I ran a thieves guild of over 150 members and we were allied with 2 other major thieves guilds for a total of about 250 thieves active in Napa Valley shard under this loose alliance.

I remember stealing being the last good thing you can do to players to take their items without dire consequence.

This news comes as a huge disappointment since I just finished macroing my characters to a satisfactory level to start my thieving escapades with my brother...

As somebody else stated this shard just did a GREAT job replicating the feeling of disgust I had for the game when these stupid changes were made to cater to the sheeple who refused to complain rather than fend for themselves...

[Severity]

The only reason people are as fuzzy as I was about the thieves is because they patched this just before UOR. It depends on what part of the T2A era you are going for. This was a controversial patch then on OSI too so oh well.

[chumbucket]

If I understand things correctly the following are true:

(1) Both systems for stealing, counts and no counts, were in era.

(2) The counts system is late era.

I would argue that if these things are true, then even a commitment to era accuracy does not entail bringing in the count system. And also I would argue that these changes are bad for the long-term health of the shard.

First, by bringing in counts, the viability of an entire template is gone. There can be no more stealing and fighting. There can still be thieves, yes. But a freeshard does not have enough population to support this playstyle except as a bank sitting thief. That isn't much fun.

Second, and building on the previous point, limiting options on a shard of this nature is a very bad thing and should not be done when not doing so is compatible with the mission of era accuracy. There are not going to be new lands to explore, new monsters to kill, new skills to master. In other words, things are not going to change in any radical way. Since that is so, it is important that the players have maximum freedom compatible with era accuracy. Erasing an entire template is not something that should be done lightly.

Third, to consider a response, viz., that this is better for the shard due to a thief problem, a fighting thief is no different from a normal thief except that such a thief can kill you IF AND ONLY IF you initiate combat. But this IF AND ONLY IF is the key: If you invite a fight, you must be prepared for the consequences. Don't attack thieves unless you are ready to fight and possibly die. We do not need proto-Trammel rules to protect people from themselves. That is bad for the shard. It would be no different than getting rid of tinker traps because they kill people who open them. You open a strange box, you take the consequences. Less risk for players that take them is bad for the shard.

It is a little silly of me to write this, given that I don't play this shard right now, but this is the best shard out there hands down now and probably ever and this seems like a very bad and serious change. It will, of course, leave PvP and PvE untouched, but those sorts of things get stale after a while. The good thing about UO is supposed to be the near total freedom it gives you, and this change chips away a major part of that.

[mrbojangles]

Well I was going to type up some rant up, but Chum puts it the best. I agree completely.
I'd also say the dozen or so players I've talked to (many non thieves) about this patch feel the same way as well.

[Uthor Nlath]

Well I was going to type up some rant up, but Chum puts it the best. I agree completely.
I'd also say the dozen or so players I've talked to (many non thieves) about this patch feel the same way as well.

I totally agree with Chum and mrbojangles!! You can add me to your list and I have about 15 players too with me. The age old question is getting more apparent...'WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT"S NOT BROKEN?' I came here becuase I love the freedoms and risks that other shards do not employ in there server. You already killed the dexer with NON era healing timers and Taming timers to mention a few. If your going to be ERA ACCURATE, then be so. Otherwise dont fix something thats not broken. This is not Tramel.

[Kaivan]

Just to remind people of the exact time frame of T2A, the time it existed was from October 1998 (somewhere in that month depending on the resources you follow) until April 3, 2000 (this date is solid among resources). As such, we know that T2A existed for somewhere between 17 and 18 months. Since our approach has been to maintain systems that existed for the majority of the era for the major systems (i.e. systems that are not major systems such as skill locks and runebooks and other late T2A additions exist here despite their short existence). With respect to stealing, and with murder counts, we took a look at how long the two systems existed, and did a quick comparison:

Old stealing system: 5 months (assuming an October 1st release, and the patch notes being released the day of the patch, which is never the case)
New stealing system: 13 months

Old murder system: 6 months (same assumptions)
New murder system: 12 months

Obviously, it's quite clear which of the systems existed for longer in each situation, and you can see that we have followed that process for these two systems, as well as major systems within the game as best as possible.

[chumbucket]

Just to remind people of the exact time frame of T2A, the time it existed was from October 1998 (somewhere in that month depending on the resources you follow) until April 3, 2000 (this date is solid among resources). As such, we know that T2A existed for somewhere between 17 and 18 months. Since our approach has been to maintain systems that existed for the majority of the era for the major systems (i.e. systems that are not major systems such as skill locks and runebooks and other late T2A additions exist here despite their short existence). With respect to stealing, and with murder counts, we took a look at how long the two systems existed, and did a quick comparison:

Old stealing system: 5 months (assuming an October 1st release, and the patch notes being released the day of the patch, which is never the case)
New stealing system: 13 months

Old murder system: 6 months (same assumptions)
New murder system: 12 months

Obviously, it's quite clear which of the systems existed for longer in each situation, and you can see that we have followed that process for these two systems, as well as major systems within the game as best as possible.

So there are a few basic issues:

(a) Are the systems both era accurate?

Yes.

(b) Do both systems conform to the policy for implementation?

Apparently, no.

(c) Which of the systems is best?

Surely debatable, but I have already made the case that the old system is best.

I still would maintain that if two systems are era accurate, then the better of the two systems should be maintained, particularly if implementing the inferior system will seriously disrupt the gameplay of established players. (I suppose the only exceptions would be due to balancing PvP, but that is not very relevant here.) In other words, it seems to me that (c) should be more important than (b). That said, this is not my shard and not my vision for a shard (damn mounts!), so good luck regardless.

[Hemperor]

I love it this way, if someone steals your shit, that is initiating a fight imo, mages are handcuffed in this situation because there is no spell damage. To fight a thief you only leave yourself open to more steals, and every thief here is gm from 0 effort (how inaccurate is that?) so they will continue to take all your shit.

If you don't want to be counted, give us spell damage in town, at least against thieves.

[Kaivan]

That is an argument solely open to interpretation. When we start attempting to become developers and decide which patch is good and which patch isn't, we end up falling down a very slippery slope that runs the risk of severely interrupting our mandate. Far too many other shards have done exactly that, and we don't intend for us to do the same thing.

[Slade]

I love it this way, if someone steals your shit, that is initiating a fight imo, mages are handcuffed in this situation because there is no spell damage. To fight a thief you only leave yourself open to more steals, and every thief here is gm from 0 effort (how inaccurate is that?) so they will continue to take all your shit.

If you don't want to be counted, give us spell damage in town, at least against thieves.

Or, because you're a mage, you could cast recall on a recall rune to magically appear at a location other than the one where the thief is bothering you.

Amazing concept, I know. It's quite effective.

[Hemperor]

Thieves do not bother me anymore.

It's just a joke that they do 0 to get GM stealing (once again, completely inaccurate) and then get to play this perfect little cookie cutter template that lets them steal and THEN kill.

The only real challenges they have is dexxer vs dexxer, which is pure luck and 0 skill once again.

Thanks to the staff for staying accurate, great change here!

[chumbucket]

This is the last thing I'm going to say on the matter, and indeed on these boards.

That choosing is hard doesn't mean you should turn every choice over to a simple rule. You need to use some judgment when deciding what to implement. Simply picking according to the rule "whatever was in longest" isn't a good policy. Yes, making choices will be hard. There will be no clearly correct answers. But just use good judgment, consider which of the era accurate options best promotes your goals (e.g., diversity of playstyles, a fun game) and test things before implementation. Choosing according to a rule that cannot take account of your goals is, in my opinion, bad policy.

This is a very bad change for the shard. It decreases player freedom, caters to those who want no risk (which isn't to say it was chosen for this purpose, only that achieves this effect) and hurts established players for no tangible benefits.

You guys do most things exactly right. And this one bad choice won't kill the shard. Indeed, it might even increase the population (but so might Trammel). There are still plenty of things to do. But every decrease in player freedom is just bringing closer for every player the day when there really isn't anything to do but the same things have already done, the day when they go play something else.

[son]

These stealing changes reflect changes made when UO:R ie trammel was introduced.

It severely nerfes thieves, and it is a terrible move on the dev staff.

PS, they are not era accurate, so why the introduction?

[Faust]

son, the thieving changes are era accurate. Read the information in this thread that discusses it. The stealing changes came during the same time as insta hit being implemented.

[Ezp]

Dunno what all the fuss is about? I had lots of fun and profit on my theif with the current system in its era. Although killing them was more fun, just can't have both patches. Kaivan makes a great point with the current being in much longer than the older.

I remember a post with many ppl complaining about theives needing a fix. Now the opposite side is complaining about it being fixed. The more greater time frame period was selected. Try and adapt its not all that bad