Proposed mechanics changes for era consistency.

[Kaivan]

Just a small note, the house deed change was originally in place starting on April 16, 1999. There is a note under the April 14th patch notes which indicates the soon-to-be change. Given the fact that it was actually in early T2A that house deeds were made newbie, it has a precedence of being a reasonable change. As for the May 25th change, it was likely a change that made them blessed (although they didn't have the words to explain it was blessed item - the first reference to "blessed" is used as part of the CUB system).

Regardless of whether we decide to make them newbied or blessed, the reality is that house deeds were not free-reign items starting at a fairly early point in T2A history.

[Faust]

Well my opinion on curing is completely opposite than most here. We know that cure potions are obviously inaccurate and should be fixed as soon as possible. This is clearly declared in the patch note in the UOR publish.

Cure Potions
Cure potions will now cure poison based on the relative strength of the cure potion and the poison afflicting the character. A lesser cure will have virtually no chance of curing a deadly poisoned character, while a greater cure will cure greater poison much more often than not. All other cure and poison levels will scale accordingly.

Here is some information that clearly states that it was "easy" to cure deadly poison in November 18, 1999 that further supports the formula from the demo.

Niobe - *Eddie* Is there any plan on fixing the cure potions so that the higher cures are needed to cure the higher poisons? Right now lesser cures have a large percentage to cure even deadly, and magic cure can cure all of them way too easily, making poisoning pretty weak.
Firedog - Yes.
Firedog - Yes there is.
Firedog - Soon, hopefully.
Firedog - Should be a part of early phases of the new alchemy stuff.

[Mirage]

You have to remember in that conversation Faust that it was one persons personal view on the poisoning situation.

[venox]

This was the reply from when I pointed out the error.

Now just look at this... we are to believe that in t2a an apprentice mage has a 1 in 2 chance of curing LETHAL POISON for the cost of less than 20 gp and 6 mana??

I'm sorry but this magery cure fix is certainly wrong.

I guess it was called lethal poison because it was 'lethally inconvenient' to have to cast twice.

it certainly smells fishy.

[Jiggo]

I'll just say that I don't ever remember failing to cure DP aside from very limited times (and being surprised at not curing it), with a simple an nox. The way it currently is is horribly inaccurate. The "deadly" portion of deadly poison isnt that it was difficult to cure, but the huge amounts of damage it did if it wasnt cured. A dexer hitting with a kryss could easily disrupt several cures making the caster either continue trying to cure, or heal, allowing the poison to do more damage. I dont remember at ANY point of UO, having deadly poison do what it does here, until Age of Shadows where it became extremely difficult to cure (as it is here).

[Caranthir]

Remove all trophies, all rewards all anything from non-era accurate events. If people want to "earn" something, make everything goes PVP events and allow looting. That's at least somewhat era accurate.

[Onde]

Regarding Trophy point system.

I personally perceive the CTF/DD nice entertainment and don’t really do these for the sake of trophy points. I do however recognize that for some players these are an incentive to attend these so I could (a) increase the frequency when these events would take place (b) create some sort of incentive to attend these for those who are attending. Perhaps a ranking list or something that gets some players all worked up.

Suicide killing in CTF events is highly supported. I complement the guy who came up with this concept but it makes CTF events somewhat ridiculous.

The random selection for the events is a somewhat must. I would prefer a system where there’s only one pool from which you have some type of mathematical algorithm that defines randomness. Currently it’s ridiculous that in CTF’s certain players always endup in same teams. I agree that it sucks if your guildies are in other teams but I also think it’s a nice challenge that you need to put extra effort to make your team win.

I would replace the trophy reward system with a buy-in system. A player could eg obtain special hair color dye etc for eg, 100k (just a random number). This would be imho a good alternative because it would also serve as a money sink and remove money from circulation and in turn benefit the economy. I would remove some rewards from the reward system altogether but throw them around from other GM hosted events or something.

Newbie house deeds is ok considering that if a player spends time to acquire house deed and it gets stolen or something the guy won’t get all torn about it. The argument some players have made against this is valid for OSI shard but the shard population is simply not big enough to drive players away because they loose stuff.

Thanks

[MatronDeWinter]

Newbie house deeds is ok considering that if a player spends time to acquire house deed and it gets stolen or something the guy won’t get all torn about it. The argument some players have made against this is valid for OSI shard but the shard population is simply not big enough to drive players away because they loose stuff.
Thanks

If the shard population is not big enough to drive players away because they lose stuff, why are you considering it okay for someone to not be able to lose a house deed? In any case, the argument (pro) newbiefied house deed is that because the shard population is so small, and housing is not very dense, people can carry a deed with them and drop it to run inside and hide whenever threatened.

[Hemperor]

In any case, the argument (pro) newbiefied house deed is that because the shard population is so small, and housing is not very dense, people can carry a deed with them and drop it to run inside and hide whenever threatened.

That is the sole reason I am against newbied house deeds, I couldn't care less about people stealing them.

[Safir]

• House Deeds will be noobied
• Architects no longer buy deeds, the error in the sell menu is the motivation for this.
• Real Estate Brokers will added to purchase deeds.

Does this mean that House Deeds will no longer fetch full value when sold to a "Real Estate Broker"?

[Arkon]

Patch sounds great, thanks for the hard work.

One question, any chance at letting us know what the math is gonna behind this:

[*]Spell Interruption from physical attacks will be substantially more frequent (Subject: Interruption.).

By substantial is it going to be 100% on moderate damage (roughly over 5 I believe?) or just a significantly higher chance but not guaranteed?

Thanks again.

[Faust]

Arkon the formula is based on the damage, magery skill of the caster, and spell circle being casted for interruption. The previous check would tally the back end of the physical damage output to check for a disrupt. Weapon damage before it's finalized is cut in half in the standard formula. This specific output before it's cut in half is used instead of the previous finalized value resulting in a 2x the disruption chance as previously for all situations.

[BlackFoot]

I think the results from a patch this significant will be interesting :D
I bet things dont turn out as everyone expects
Cant wait
no trophys from ctf <-- big time good news, will probably take a week or two before all the afkers realize they arent getting pts anymore

[Faust]

You have to remember in that conversation Faust that it was one persons personal view on the poisoning situation.

You're not taking into consideration of the overall picture here...

Take a look at the information that was extracted by me that was presented in the original discussion thread on this topic.

One of the biggest changes publish 25 (the PvP publish) brought to UO was the change in the cure spell - it is now a lot harder to cure higher level poisons with the cure spell. Since the second level cure spell was now essentially nerfed, the development team decided to increase the effectiveness of the level 4 spell "Arch Cure". However, since Arch Cure casts a lot slower than Cure, some changes had to be made; so instead of casting like a regular 4th circle spell, Arch Cure now casts like a 3rd circle spell instead, meaning its only 0.25 seconds slower than the regular cure, but a lot more effective in terms of curing poisons. Of course, this means you'll have to spend more mana to cure poison (11 versus 6), but overall its a nice change to make higher level poisons more worthwhile. I'll add a table to illustrate the effectiveness of the Cure spells.

Cure Spell - 100 Magery
Lesser - 100%
Regular - 100%
Greater - 76%
Deadly - 43%
Lethal - 10%

Arch Cure Spell - 100 Magery
Lesser - 100%
Regular - 100%
Greater - 100%
Deadly - 100%
Lethal - 87%

Reference: http://uo.stratics.com/content/professi ... ells.shtml

The article clearly states that the "cure spell" was severely nerfed.

This either means one of the two scenarios....

1. Only the cure spell was nerfed leaving arch cure at the same value that was already easy to cure.
2. The cure spell was nerfed and the arch cure spell effectiveness was increased from a lowered value that was ninja rogued from an unknown patch.

Now if you analyze scenario one it obviously makes a lot more sense. First, the results of the arch cure spell(that uses the same effective rate in the demo) uses the EXACT values produced in the demo... Would this just be one huge coincidence that the values for each level are exactly the same as a time period that was well over 5 years previously?

If you look at scenario two this would mean the cure spell using the old values of the current value of the arch cure spell was severely nerfed. At the same time the arch cure spell that got some random "ninja rogue" patch that lowered it previously was now changed back to its original older values?

I hardly think so...

[Kraarug]

... the development team decided to increase the effectiveness of the level 4 spell "Arch Cure"....

It seems the actual scenario is spelled out in your quoted source.

The numbers you show are from the increase of the effectiveness of Arch Cure.

There's no way that circle 2 Cure performed the same as the 'improved' version of Arch Cure.