Re: Blessed Items should break from damage REDUX!
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:45 am
Were ibd's in era? If so we should get them!
A forum for discussion of Second Age UO Shard
http://forums.uosecondage.com/
Can you believe my initial post (with era-accurate references and evidence) was created on June 30, 2010? My only dream is to see this fallacy corrected and for UOSA to become one step closer of being the most accurate representation of T2A to date!MatronDeWinter wrote:You are ever vigilant in your quest for era-accuracy, Hicha. You are the hero UOSA needs!
Blessed items do break here. Items that were blessed before the patch are grandfathered in. Grandfathered items are, and always have been a part of UO - on OSI/EA shards and on UOSA. I don't think it's necessary to explain why and to provide a list of many other examples (for both UOSA and the late 1990s on production shards) as it's probably been stated numerous times.Hicha wrote:Can you believe my initial post (with era-accurate references and evidence) was created on June 30, 2010? My only dream is to see this fallacy corrected and for UOSA to become one step closer of being the most accurate representation of T2A to date!MatronDeWinter wrote:You are ever vigilant in your quest for era-accuracy, Hicha. You are the hero UOSA needs!
Good morning Boomland. Can you give me some examples on UO where items have been grandfathered? The only thing I'm aware of are houses that have been grandfathered (but the caveat was that the owner have an active account.)Boomland Jenkins wrote:Blessed items do break here. Items that were blessed before the patch are grandfathered in. Grandfathered items are, and always have been a part of UO - on OSI/EA shards and on UOSA. I don't think it's necessary to explain why and to provide a list of many other examples (for both UOSA and the late 1990s on production shards) as it's probably been stated numerous times.Hicha wrote:Can you believe my initial post (with era-accurate references and evidence) was created on June 30, 2010? My only dream is to see this fallacy corrected and for UOSA to become one step closer of being the most accurate representation of T2A to date!MatronDeWinter wrote:You are ever vigilant in your quest for era-accuracy, Hicha. You are the hero UOSA needs!
1. Rares obtained through bugs (vs exploits) - things like "GM goof ups" or through other methods, such as NPCs (you could get purple ringmail leggings from NPC armorers using some method, I never learned how, but this was before Factions came out, so I know it wasn't from the sigil-hueing bug)Hicha wrote: Good morning Boomland. Can you give me some examples on UO where items have been grandfathered? The only thing I'm aware of are houses that have been grandfathered (but the caveat was that the owner have an active account.)
I have some glacial pants/bandana/spellbook on Atlantic that are grandfathered in, originally made via some sort of exploit but allowed to exist.Boomland Jenkins wrote:1. Rares obtained through bugs (vs exploits) - things like "GM goof ups" or through other methods, such as NPCs (you could get purple ringmail leggings from NPC armorers using some method, I never learned how, but this was before Factions came out, so I know it wasn't from the sigil-hueing bug)Hicha wrote: Good morning Boomland. Can you give me some examples on UO where items have been grandfathered? The only thing I'm aware of are houses that have been grandfathered (but the caveat was that the owner have an active account.)
2. Improperly placed houses using obvious bugs (as long as the house didn't block specific things - on Lake Superior for example, a player placed a house in the lich room of Covetous during the first few weeks of the game going live. The house was removed. However, houses placed in town were not removed if they didn't block spawns or access)
3. Improperly placed houses from past placement eras (houses that had touching borders, small houses on towers, etc)
4. Guildstones and add-ons placed on ships
5. Guildstones placed off houses (you use to be able to place a guildstone anywhere in the World, as long as you "used the deed" while standing in a house you owned/had a key for)
6. Double blessed items (you could actually use a clothing bless deed on an item that was already blessed to have it named "robe (blessed) (blessed)" - one guy in my guild had thigh boots like this.
7. Sigil-hued items (Factions) were bannable to own at one point, but later accepted and grandfathered in.
That's off the top of my head.
As you probably know, I wasn't staff at the time so I can't give you a definite answer to why "old deeds didn't create unbreakable blessed items" but my assumption would be due to the fact that the patch to make future blessed items breakable, did exactly that. The patch impacted blessed items not bless deeds established after the patch day.MatronDeWinter wrote:Hello honored gamemaster, Boomland Jenkins.
Why weren't pre-existing clothing bless deeds also grandfathered? This is the big question, and the reason why I am so adamant about this topic. There was non-breakable blessed items, presumably added in at the start of the shard, fine. These obviously were highly desired items. While I don't believe they suit the nature of T2A, you wouldn't find me complaining. Then one day, clothing bless deeds were gifted to the server. Gone were the days of exploiting the automated event system for silver to save up for these items. Then one evening, late at night, hours before the server would reset, I am told "Blessed items will become breakable" by various players, bongy comes to mind, but many many others as well were spreading this information around. The next morning, all non used clothing bless deeds were nerfed, and now produced breakable blessed items. But the few that heard the chat the night before, used all of their deeds, went on buying sprees to buy even more to use, and magically, already-blessed items were grandfathered in.
The decisions made on this day were clearly selective. I don't think I need to remind you what later became of members of staff who administrated during this time. This is the problem.
v/r -Matron
I'm not sure that the claim regarding prior knowledge of the patch has any actual merit. For years before the patch came out, rumors would fly around at various times that we were going to "patch out unbreakable blessed clothing", and players would react if one or a group of players pushed that particular message hard enough for a period of time. This casts a major amount of doubt onto the claim that specific players were alerted early to the idea that we were releasing a patch for blessing items, and unless verifiable evidence exists showing that Derrick specifically addressed certain players about it, I wouldn't give the claim any more thought.Elk Eater wrote:I think the bigger point is that knowledge about the patch and its ramifications was unfairly distributed.
It would have been a lot different if there was a 1-2 week notice or if no players knew in advance at all. The selective dissemination of such a significant mechanic change was extremely unfair. It would be like staff telling a few people to unload all their dyed furniture shortly before the release of unlimited dye tubs.
Unfortunately, given the amount of time that has passed, there's no fair way to fix gf blessed items, making them break would disproportionately punish current players over those who originally benefited.