Melee era accurate?

[Kaivan]

It seems that you're confusing the changes from early T2A with the changes found during UOR. This is exactly why we require evidence to be brought fourth that shows a particular position, because memory fades over time and isn't foolproof. To help clarify the situation, let me go over some of the information to help clear up what mechanics existed.

First and foremost, to address the point that you had regarding wrestling "dodging" an attack, this is only partially correct, and is merely a description of the broader mechanics at work. In combat, the chant to hit or miss your opponent is based on comparing the weapon skill of the weapon you are currently using with the weapon that is being used by your opponent. As an example, if you were holding a long sword, and your opponent is holding a kryss, the combat system will compare your swordsmanship skill with your opponent's fencing skill, when determining whether a swing you make will hit or not.

As mentioned before, this function of comparing combat skills to determine whether you hit or miss takes into account the weapon that you and your opponent are holding, however, there is a special condition that also must be accounted for as well: when the player is holding no weapon. In these cases, a player who is holding no weapon must also have a skill to compare to a combatant, which is the wrestling skill. Thus, the same behavior of determining whether you hit or miss an opponent can be calculated when your opponent is disarmed, just as it occurs when they are holding a weapon; the calculation just accounts for wrestling instead of a different combat skill. The result of this is that an opponent who has a wrestling skill that is equivalent to yours can "dodge" your attacks, however, this is not a unique ability given only to wrestling, but is an inherent property of all combat skills.

Second, the additional functionality given to mace fighting is part of the February 2, 1999 patch which states the following:

[*]Mace weapons now cause stamina loss and extra damage to armor when they hit an opponent.

This line item is the only specific change to a weapon during 1999.

Finally, nowhere in that patch, or any previous patch, were any specific changes to swordsmanship or fencing mentioned that gave them the ability to perform paralyzing blows or concussion blows. However, these changes are covered in great detail with the introduction of UOR.

On a side note, you mention finding evidence for your position on specific mechanics. If you find information dated from 1999 that you believe confirms the existence of stun punch, disarm punch, paralyzing blow, concussion blow, or crushing blow, then it would be in your best interest to post it. If the information is unambiguous and directly points to the existence of a special hit, then a more detailed investigation and patch to our combat mechanics would be needed.

[Higler]

I'm not confusing changes that were made I simply can't find particular information that was already in the game thus needed no changing so nothing was mentioned about it, like i said it may have been feb of 99 when the macing changes came into play but these were specifically put in to balance macing with other combat skills as i said that were already in play they were not added at any point. The combat skills did compare against each other when your holding the type of weapon for your skill your right and wrestling was holding nothing, for example if a swordsman was holding a kyrss he would have no chance to block or dodge or parry a macer wielding a war axe but if he had a katana rather he would have that chance to but wrestling this was an increased chance to counter act swordsman and fencers being able to poison their weapons where macing and wrestling could not so to balance this wrestling had this chance initially increased and macing later had the stamina draining and armor breaking affect as we stated to counter act all 3 other combat skills having something special macing did not thats why macing was the only one changed and not any other combat skill due to them already having said bonuses. As I have said numerous times im not refering to stun punch in any way this was an ability added in uo:r without a doubt. And actually i never said i found evidence I said I could not find credible evidence to bring fourth, all my evidence of what I'm talking about was from other posting in forums and dsicussing these things nothing put out from origin themselves, like I said it would make no sense for them to post anything as these things were already in play thus they had no need to discuss them in patch notes because they were not changed until uo:r. It matters not whether these changes are put into affect here I can play either style and be perfectly happy doing so, I just wanted to know for myself so I knew how to skill my characters so wasting any more time trying to prove something that I can't prove that I know and was knowledge amongst most others at this time. If you care to find for yourself there are plenty of fourm posting in multiple places with others disucssing this but that still is not "unambiguous" proof due to it being other average players talking about it, nothing official from origin as I stated in my previous post.

[Kaivan]

I'm not confusing changes that were made I simply can't find particular information that was already in the game thus needed no changing so nothing was mentioned about it

There are numerous examples of mechanics that were not changed, yet have information out there to prove that it existed, thus there is no convenient escape route provided simply by claiming that it was never documented because it had always been like that.

but wrestling this was an increased chance to counter act swordsman and fencers being able to poison their weapons where macing and wrestling could not so to balance this wrestling had this chance initially increased... thats why macing was the only one changed and not any other combat skill due to them already having said bonuses.

Again, this is another claim that you are putting fourth without any evidence to back it up. The excuse that there are no official statement from OSI that talks about this subject is insufficient to excuse the claim from requiring evidence based on the fact that there are other era sources that talked about mechanics.

I just wanted to know for myself so I knew how to skill my characters so wasting any more time trying to prove something that I can't prove that I know and was knowledge amongst most others at this time.

I've specifically bolded the part that is important here.

You are making a claim about a very large number of mechanics, and keep hiding behind the fact that no official statement has been made on the subject. This does no mean that credible information did not exist during the era, it simply means that it was contained outside the patch notes or official statements. A great many of our changes on UOSA come from places other than the patch notes and official statements from OSI. They include stratics archives, the demo, and archived newsgroup posts from the era. These sources, when sufficient amounts of unambiguous evidence surfaces from them, act as clear indicators for how particular skills work, despite no information coming from an official source.

In that light, the bolded part of the quote is very important, because you are making a claim regarding the knowledge of these mechanics among players during the era. This is at a diametric opposite of what I have come across over the last 3 years when researching era information discussed by the players. I have not seen any evidence anywhere that can be linked to the existence of a random stun punch, or any other sort of ability such as an increased chance to miss against wrestlers, and the evidence that currently exists points to exactly the opposite result. This problem is yours to reconcile.

If you care to find for yourself there are plenty of fourm posting in multiple places with others disucssing this but that still is not "unambiguous" proof due to it being other average players talking about it

This is your job to do this. You are the one who has made a claim regarding the functionality of weapon skills during the era, and it is your responsibility to find the information. My experience of searching the era resources for general information regarding combat has never brought up any evidence to support your position in the entire time that I have done it, yet it has yielded significant information against that position.

If you choose not to find the information, then that is perfectly fine too. However, until you find information to support your position, then you should withhold your claims regarding these mechanics until you can provide information to back it up.

[Higler]

ok its evident no matter what I say now that you don't actually read much if any of it. Enough said I suggest this thread should be locked and or removed before this keeps the way its going of getting out of hand, I never asked nor wanted any changes or needed or wanted to prove anything as I have stated from my third post and have repeated numerous times. You can think what you want and be wrong as much as you like it matters absolutely none to me. As I stated yes these mechanics did have advantages that I took advantage of but they also had big flaws that I could not stand and honestly I'm more inclined not to find any proof due to hally mages already being extremely over powered and I would hate to see this further increased. I will no longer be posting in this thread I have wasted too much of my time and let people flame this thread entirely too much as it stands now. I hope my suggestion of it being locked and or deleted is taken into consideration for the better of the forums not having incorrect flaming lingering around to clog up the boards.

[Kaivan]

ok its evident no matter what I say now that you don't actually read much if any of it.

I find it hard to belive that you think that I do not read your posts when I take the time to piece out my response to each point you bring up.

I never asked nor wanted any changes or needed or wanted to prove anything as I have stated from my third post and have repeated numerous times.

I'm assuming that this is what you mean when you say that I don't read what you post. Thankfully, I do, and I responded accordingly:

If you choose not to find the information, then that is perfectly fine too. However, until you find information to support your position, then you should withhold your claims regarding these mechanics until you can provide information to back it up.

You can think what you want and be wrong as much as you like it matters absolutely none to me.

This is the heart of the matter. You are making claims about mechanics, and are telling people that they are wrong and you are right, yet you do nothing to back your position up. Whether you don't have any information to prove your stance, or you don't have the desire to do so is irrelevant; telling people they are wrong without evidence is insulting and condescending, and belittles the process of presenting a well reasoned case for your claims.

As I stated yes these mechanics did have advantages that I took advantage of but they also had big flaws that I could not stand and honestly I'm more inclined not to find any proof due to hally mages already being extremely over powered and I would hate to see this further increased.

And again, you don't provide any information. Not a single bit of it. Simply claiming something to be so does not make it so.

I will no longer be posting in this thread I have wasted too much of my time and let people flame this thread entirely too much as it stands now. I hope my suggestion of it being locked and or deleted is taken into consideration for the better of the forums not having incorrect flaming lingering around to clog up the boards.

It is your right to decide not to post in this thread anymore, however, I can assure you that this thread will not be locked or deleted. Very little of what has been posted in this thread comes even close to flaming, and most of what has transpired is people asking for proof of your claims, that's it.

[Higler]

Ok sorrry If I seemed a bit upset or irritated well because I was early in the morning, neither here nor there my issue not yours and I should not have reacted the way I did as it was not your fault, so with sincerest intentions I do apologize for that. The matter of me stating you don't read my post is the due to the fact you continually bring up the fact of stun punches, when in fact I have said multiple times this was after the era this shard is set to be in and was never a statement I made as stun punching gimp mages who couldn't hack it, and mages or theives who used skill and disarmed and stayed in a fight instead of running to the nearest guard zone are two completely different topics from different times. So I'm wondering why you continue to bring this moot point up as if were not in agreeance on the matter only confusing this thread even more, I just want to stay on topic is all. About my claims and not proving them, I have spent the better part of my first day on this server searching every nook and cranny I could find that was credible rather than playing and enjoying the game I love. Another player backing up my claims would prove nothing, I did not see fit to post it here and was being sincere when I said if anyone wants to look at these others posting backing up my claims they are easy to find and are numerous as such I won't post many different links. Also because many of these posts are from forums of other servers which I intended to not draw any attention to thus diverting attention from the great server we have here, and leaving it up to others if they wanted to and find this information. I do assure you that I already have it in the works to get clear official word on this issue (I'm waiting on an email) and when or if I do get any information it will be relayed to the proper people and not posted here, thus letting the beings higher than myself post this information if they see fit. But to say I don't prove anything or back up my claims then not do so yourself (speaking generally refering to anyone else) is not only wrong but hypocritical and I hope that you see this from my point of view as I have continually been accused of being wrong myself with no evidance to back it up so I am a bit frustrated when more people jump on the band waggon and claim your wrong and give no proof themselves. And yes your right I did use the wrong wording it wasn't flaming as much as i took it as "lets bash the new guy cus he obviously can't know anything and we know it all" or so to speak is how these threads have come across, I do understand this is the internet and makes it sometimes unclear to read peoples intentions but this is how they came across to me personally, if thats not how they were intended then I do apologize for being so abrassive and rash. Now I will say this with the up most respect and sincerity, I refuse to make any further statements unless new evidance is brought to light whether it be by myself and the way I spoke of earlier or others, constructive proof of this issue any further and I would be glad to respond and discuss further. Until that time lets play the game how it is enjoy it and let this issue rest, for the time being, until there is 100% undisputable evidance brought to the table, is that fair?

[LudKrud]

derp.......

[Sandro]

This is an important topic because of the fact that we attempt to be as mechanically accurate to the era as possible. When a player makes a claim that something worked differently than it does here, this becomes an important topic because it may be an accurate statement, and thus require us to make such a change.

So this being said, care to explain why you guys intentionally removed being able to see house decay as a ghost?

Pick & choose behind the scenes but claim to be all accurate in public?

Cmon now..

[Kaivan]

I was never informed about the change until after it was put in, and I advocate its removal. There are other ways to prevent players from illegally checking house signs with an unapproved 3rd party program. However, this issue problem does not suddenly validate any and all suggestions due to one problematic change. The solution is to remove the problematic mechanic, not to throw up our hands and decide to do whatever we want.

[iamreallysquall]

I was never informed about the change until after it was put in, and I advocate its removal. There are other ways to prevent players from illegally checking house signs with an unapproved 3rd party program. However, this issue problem does not suddenly validate any and all suggestions due to one problematic change. The solution is to remove the problematic mechanic, not to throw up our hands and decide to do whatever we want.

yeah until they code their own local app *cough*