Page 1 of 1

line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:36 pm
by Apok
I am certain this has been discussed before.

Keeping it civil, this is what I would like to know.

Line of sight: the code, mechanics act the way we would like them too. Fair enough.

Line of sight using razor: using razor in conjunction with the existing code and razors relative location. Is this something that could be done during the T2A Era? I am not sure that Using a relative location was every possible......

Game play: was it possible to do something like drop an item to a relative location without the use of a third party program?

I am not a programmer and understandably this may be a lot more involved then any of us non programmers understand but instead of looking at the code for LOS can we not look at code or ways people used relative location during the T2A Era??

Thanks.

Re: line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:08 am
by Roser
This is a slightly unfortunate bug that has always existed in UO, from the T2A demo all the way to modern day UO...

This is something that can be done without razor, nothing but a UO client is needed to execute this line of sight bug.

There are a handful of way's to do this without razor, here is one:

Walk far enough away from a house to either de-load the house or make a portion of it disappear thus exposing the ground beneath it. Use the teleport spell and click the ground tile you wish to target, this will set the ground tile as your last target. Position yourself at least 3 tiles away from the structure and within spell range of your last target. You can now target the ground under the structure with whatever spell or item you want by using "last target".

This only works with tower's, keep's and castle's and is consistent with the same classic structures on official UO servers today.

The reason why this was never fixed was likely due to the obscure nature of this bug, the introduction of trammel (cant damage players), the ban-ability of this exploit, and the custom housing system.

Re: line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:44 am
by Drunk'n Disorder
Rose wrote:detailed explanation

Short answer: Was possible during the era, but was not widely exploited. Also, not going to be changed anytime soon.

Re: line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:11 am
by Apok
Rose wrote:This is a slightly unfortunate bug that has always existed in UO, from the T2A demo all the way to modern day UO...

This is something that can be done without razor, nothing but a UO client is needed to execute this line of sight bug

Thanks rose I will test to se how it can be done without razor.

Let's also try this: who has evidence of this being done during the second age era?

Thanks

Re: line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:52 pm
by redeodrik
With any era-accurate server emulation, like this or Project 1999, the issue of bugs or exploits always comes up. The question is are exploits or bugs part of the era and thus should be kept? Or not? Is that still era-accurate?

There will never be a perfectly pure emulation. Only attempts. But we have to try. Within reason.

Re: line of sight (mechanics, razor, game play)

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:41 am
by Drunk'n Disorder
redeodrik wrote:With any era-accurate server emulation, like this or Project 1999, the issue of bugs or exploits always comes up. The question is are exploits or bugs part of the era and thus should be kept? Or not? Is that still era-accurate?

There will never be a perfectly pure emulation. Only attempts. But we have to try. Within reason.

As I stated in another thread, we did not see this in era because it is really only effective against a player who is AFK. Since unattended macroing was forbidden and there was a timeout (15 minutes?) that kicked you from the game for not doing any action, we did not see many people AFK in their homes. This would mean there was even less reason for this bug to be used even if it was known in era.

I'm not sure what this does for the whole argument, but it does explain why we never saw it back on OSI.