Getting guard whacked outside the guard zone.

[nightshark]

damn, i guess i was right after all..

the guards should only extend out of town to the extent in which a player can hear (los) another playing calling guards..

Yes, that's what they should do, which they weren't

Pretty sure everyone was aware of that. Somehow you managed to agree with everyone, and start an argument about it, and win.

[chumbucket]

I'm only going by memory, but I seem to recall that when I first started one way I had of making GLD was to stand outside the guardzone, get people to attack me, and then run in the guardzone for the guardwhack. At some point during my time on OSI well before I quit, this was made impossible. I quit playing OSI when Trammel came out.

[nightshark]

I'm only going by memory, but I seem to recall that when I first started one way I had of making GLD was to stand outside the guardzone, get people to attack me, and then run in the guardzone for the guardwhack. At some point during my time on OSI well before I quit, this was made impossible. I quit playing OSI when Trammel came out.

That should be possible if you are re-attacked or casted on once entering the guard zone (even if your attacker is outside)... but not possible otherwise.

There's something really weird going on at the moment where it is impossible to make someone auto-defend you if you are blue to them. Even if you spam last attack on them, they won't punch you. You could definitely do this on OSI, and the lack of it here, has 2 side effects

1. You can't force murder counts on thieves. This was possible on OSI. Equip your newbie dagger (0 fencing), force the thief to punch you and deal 1 damage, then commit suicide. It's a lame tactic, a huge game flaw, and it would annoy the hell outta me when someone did it to my thief, but it was era accurate.
2. You can't force a guard whack on someone by getting them to punch/hit you. This was possible on OSI. Spam attack last and run up by your opponent, the moment they swing at you, you should be able to call guards. (doesn't work here)

I imagine there's a third side effect, but I haven't tested it - PKers will have a massive advantage in fighting since you can't force them to wrestle you.

[Faust]

Chum is thinking of the pre-t2a noto days when thieves could steal beyond the boundaries, get attacked, and run back inside to call guards that would send them beyond the city limits.

This was fixed before the infamous thief nerf patch based on my recollections though. Both hurt thieves in a negative way.

[Kaivan]

2. You can't force a guard whack on someone by getting them to punch/hit you. This was possible on OSI. Spam attack last and run up by your opponent, the moment they swing at you, you should be able to call guards. (doesn't work here)

This should obviously be limited to a time when they are an aggressor to you (also this mechanic is confirmed on the demo).

[nightshark]

2. You can't force a guard whack on someone by getting them to punch/hit you. This was possible on OSI. Spam attack last and run up by your opponent, the moment they swing at you, you should be able to call guards. (doesn't work here)

This should obviously be limited to a time when they are an aggressor to you (also this mechanic is confirmed on the demo).

Here's how it currently works on UOSA:
JoePK attacks John outside of town (being in and out of town makes no difference, I'm just using it to make it clear).

John gates (or runs) into town, JoePK tabs out and follows.

John can now spam attack last on JoePK for an indefinite period of time, and JoePK's character will never retaliate (wrong). Note: JoePK's character should be forced to tab back into John, and if JoePK swings - wrestle or a weapon, his crim timer would be reset and guards could be called.

JoePK will go blue after 2 minutes, but John will always be blue to JoePK as long as John continues to attack JoePK every 2 minutes. So you end up with this weird situation of JoePK never being able to kill John, but John is allowed to kill JoePK (meanwhile, both characters are blue).

I actually had this situation pop up a couple of times in the past few days. One of these times, the situation went on for literally 20 minutes. I was blue to the guy the whole time, thus he couldn't attack me, but he was grey to me. This never happened on OSI - the reason being that characters on UOSA are not auto-defending (tabbing back in) if they are defending against a blue character.

The two situations I described in my earlier post are both not possible on UOSA because of this.

[Kaivan]

The one thing that is slightly different about that than what you suggested it should be: he is only marked as a criminal when JoePK hits John. If he auto defends and doesn't hit him, he won't be marked as a criminal (again, confirmed on the demo).

[Derrick]

2. You can't force a guard whack on someone by getting them to punch/hit you. This was possible on OSI. Spam attack last and run up by your opponent, the moment they swing at you, you should be able to call guards. (doesn't work here)

This should obviously be limited to a time when they are an aggressor to you (also this mechanic is confirmed on the demo).

I do see this issue here, will be working on this as well.

Guard zones are recoded conceptually to work properly, we'll be doing a lot of testing on this before publish. The OSI guardzone was very simple, what we have on UOSA now is way more complicated than it needs to be.

The concerns voiced above regarding getting guardwhacked for crimes outside of town are not a concern under the OSI mechanic for guardzones. You were only eligible for being guardwhacked if you were within both a minimum distance of the place where the crime was committed, and of the person who called the guards. It does not matter if you were in the guard zone when the guards were called, but only if the crime was committed in the guard zone. In addition to the OSI code for guard calling, this is backed up by many anecdotal stories of players getting guardwhacked in the vicinity of town.

[nightshark]

The one thing that is slightly different about that than what you suggested it should be: he is only marked as a criminal when JoePK hits John. If he auto defends and doesn't hit him, he won't be marked as a criminal (again, confirmed on the demo).

Then the only issue is that JoePK will never auto-defend (and will never hit John).

[Derrick]

Correction to guardzones as described above are active on test center (give it a few minutes it's rebooting right now). The failure to auto-defend should be fixed as well.

This needs some serious testing before going live. Stealing should be tested as well. I've put a thief guildmaster at Sweet Dreams inn. If you'd like to test stealing and have trouble getting into the thief guild please contact a staff member who will add you to the guild if they are available to do so.

Thanks!

[marvin]

I think an important question to ask is why were guard zones changed to be inaccurate in the first place?

Nobody who actually played OSI would think it was possible to attack people inside guard zones and be immune from guards as long as you were 1 tile outside. So how did this change make it on to the shard in the first place?

It is unfortunate when shards cater to PKs and griefers to such an extent that they are willing to bend the rules of the era for them like this.

The heavy restrictions on calling guards, such as requiring line of sight, are another inaccuracy put in to please town thieves and griefers who kill macroers.

And it's the same thing with the auto-defend changes. What was the purpose of changing those to be inaccurate in the first place? The auto defend system was very simple and of course you could get people guardwhacked if you were blue to them and they had attacked you. Why is it necessary to code in some complicated mechanism to protect PKs so that they can attempt to murder people and then waltz into the guardzone after their victim?

I enjoy griefing, and I enjoy PKing, but it sort of loses its lustre when the shard actually is coding in inaccurate changes to make it easy and risk-free. It really just encourages total newbies to be griefers and drives legitimate players away from the shard. If someone is such a newb that they don't understand the auto-defend mechanism will get them guardwhacked if they follow someone they just attempted to murder into town then THEY SHOULDNT BE PKING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Don't code in overcomplicated inaccuracies just to protect lame PKers from their own stupidity or lack of knowledge.

[Derrick]

I think an important question to ask is why were guard zones changed to be inaccurate in the first place?

Nobody who actually played OSI would think it was possible to attack people inside guard zones and be immune from guards as long as you were 1 tile outside. So how did this change make it on to the shard in the first place?

Lack of complete understanding of how guard zones were supposed to work.

However they have never been accurate so it's not like we had an accurate system and then changed it to something that was inaccurate to please a particular group of players. Most of the guard zone changes have been responses to bug and glitches that did not seem accurate at the time, and the changes have been made cautiously as to not add any exploits to the system.

This has all been done within the context of what we had to work with initially from RunUO, and without having done the due dilligence of unwrapping the OSI code to understand completely how it was supposed to work. Now that we understand that the exact location of the crime is important we have added that information to the system, as under RunUO that is not recorded when a crime is committed.

What we have now on test center is accurate the the core mechanics of OSI, however these are still some lingering questions such as line of sight which have not been answered to my satisfaction, and as such have not yet been changed.

I find your post more than just a little off base in that we are intentionally coding a shard to the benefit of griefers, we're not.

Please if you are interested in this topic, go to test center and test the changes.

[nightshark]

And it's the same thing with the auto-defend changes. What was the purpose of changing those to be inaccurate in the first place? The auto defend system was very simple and of course you could get people guardwhacked if you were blue to them and they had attacked you. Why is it necessary to code in some complicated mechanism to protect PKs so that they can attempt to murder people and then waltz into the guardzone after their victim?

The auto-defend changes were in response to the fact that they were originally over-the-top and in no way accurate to OSI. http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16008

After the change, the auto-defend mechanism seemed to be removed if your attacker was blue to you, which wasn't accurate either.

The way Derrick has explained their current function sounds accurate; I haven't got a chance to test them on the test server, since it requires 2 people to test.

Props to Derrick.

[Hicha]

Just did some testing on the test server; apparently there is a 15 tile radius from the individual in the guard zone in which the attacker needs to be in to get g-whacked (ie: if I'm in the guard zone, and you attack me and are within 15 tiles, ur getting g-whacked.)



Also Derrick, not exactly sure whats going on with this, but if you're hidden or stealthed at max range, as soon as the innocent gets the "Name is attacking you!" and calls guards, the guards will spawn right on top of the hidden or stealthed person but don't always attack. I was able to stack about 5 guards before they actually killed the hidden guy.

[nightshark]

Oh, duh, multi-accounting to test... I need to get my IQ checked.