This whole Era Accurate Argument

[Pac]

I recall using mounts and fighting on them as far back as I played as well (pre-T2A).

The no-mount whiners are mostly the bad PKs upset that people can escape too easily.

[Manfromx]

Oh I'm not saying no one used them.

Even I did sometimes back in the day.

They just weren't as prevalent as they seem to be here. Maybe there was some reason other than lag. From my experience on Catskills even the mass of PK's or PK Hunters (we were reds ourselves) that would assault the Orc fort would seldom be mounted.

[Budner]

Gawd, how can you play without a mount? It's like watching molasses dry.

[Manfromx]

Does molasses dry?

I dunno somehow we made it work. Though doing the whole RP thing we didn't use mounts at all so my memory may be tainted by that.

Actually I think melee fighting is a little easier on foot. At least for timing your insta-hits. Depends on the weapon you're using though. Plus the animations are cooler

I'm not suggesting they do this however. I just recall seeing far more on foot back in the 90's than I do now.

[Oswald]

Does molasses dry?

I dunno somehow we made it work. Though doing the whole RP thing we didn't use mounts at all so my memory may be tainted by that.

Actually I think melee fighting is a little easier on foot. At least for timing your insta-hits. Depends on the weapon you're using though. Plus the animations are cooler

I'm not suggesting they do this however. I just recall seeing far more on foot back in the 90's than I do now.

Yeah I saw far more on foot back then than I do now but I never really knew (or cared) why.

I was always mounted though.

[Van Raily]

The answer for inconsistency isn't more inconsistency though, I don't want them to add even more stuff like that.

I just want the players and the admins to stick to one story, whether they start adding more to the shard or start taking things out of it. It's starting to sound like an argument with my older sister. You can't support not adding something because "it's NEA" and then conveniently ignoring that same principle when adding something that is NEA. It's disgustingly obnoxious. Either make the shard as close to T2A as possible (as the front page says) or make it clear that changes are made in order to benefit the shard as a whole - such as adding these tournament instances.

And if that's the case, stop whining when someone asks for changes (not aimed at you, Ira, but in general).

Sorry, if you don't like the unique speical events that were different on each production shard that exist here. UOSA is not replicating any specific shard nor will it ever. The shard is it's own entity as if it was a new production shard being added to the mix. UO Second Age has it's own unique events however different they may be from your production shard experiences.

Yes, actually, it is. It's called "OSI servers circa November 1999".

And if it's a new production shard with new features (for those of you who grew up watching Pee Wee Herman, this is where you scream), then why can't there be more? You can't, on one hand, say it's NEA and on the other say SecondAge "is it's own entity as if it was a new production shard being added to the mix".

Finally, Iolo's consignment was an event. These tournies are instances. These are automated features, not shard-specific adventures, quests, events, etc. They are in the same vein as champ spawns and the Gauntlet in Doom, to be UO specific, or nearly any quest system in most other MMOs out there. If you can't tell the difference between an automated game mechanic and a shard-specific event, then there's a bigger issue at hand.

Era Accuracy refers to the gameplay mechanics and ruleset more than anything else.

Says you. I find not being able to run a tavern pretty damn era-inaccurate.

"What's the soup of the day?" "This nasty bowl of brown gunk." "Oh, okay. I'll have that." "It'll be a tower deed plus 50k."

Events help keep the server alive after lots of players have capped out, which in turn helps growth, because nobody is going to want to play on a completely barren shard.

So you're advocating change in order to keep population numbers up? Isn't that what advocating change, in general, is all about? You want to make the shard better so you add to it.

Sounds like you're all for new features and just don't know it.

The problem is that there is always a tidal force of "change this!!!!!" pushing and the admins have to push back and the best way to do that is with a strict rule of era accuracy.

But you just said... *Points up*

If you don't like it you can go play on another free shard.

I do, as well as T2A. But good attitude. I believe that's what killed AI. *Thumbs up* Keep it up.

ps. That said I wouldn't mind a change to archery so that it doesn't suck, and a change to bandage making.

But you just said- oh, nevermind...

[Biohazard]

Van, this is where they tell you policy and mechanics are 2 different ball games

you will not win.

[Van Raily]

It's not a matter of who wins, but who loses.

I'm not losing. I can't, I have nothing to lose in this argument. I enjoy the community here; it's very diverse and far less asinine than other shards. However, I played back in 1999. I don't see the magic anymore. It was fun then because 1) there were no other options, and 2) it was 1999: I had school friends playing with me, the veteran-newb ratio was completely opposite of what it is now, and the game was still very new to most everyone. After 11 years and looking back, I see why Trammel and other things were created. A mistake, yes, but I see why they did that as opposed to nothing at all. That, and hally-tank PvP is soooo boring... I just don't see the allure to T2A PvP at all.

The fact still remains that what they say and what they do are two different things. By "they" I mean both the admins and devs, as well as the vocal playerbase who are effectively supporting feature creep without acknowledging it.

Unlike disagreements with additions (or lack-thereof) themselves, the disagreement that there is a double-standard in the first place is far more insidious and destructive to a shard. It sows doubt as to the admins' designs and purpose, and ultimately weakens the stance on "this is T2A, pure and simple, regardless of others' wishes" as precedents have already proven otherwise.

[Smelly Ira]

I just want the players and the admins to stick to one story, whether they start adding more to the shard or start taking things out of it. It's starting to sound like an argument with my older sister. You can't support not adding something because "it's NEA" and then conveniently ignoring that same principle when adding something that is NEA. It's disgustingly obnoxious. Either make the shard as close to T2A as possible (as the front page says) or make it clear that changes are made in order to benefit the shard as a whole - such as adding these tournament instances.

And if that's the case, stop whining when someone asks for changes (not aimed at you, Ira, but in general).

I totally agree wtih this to be honest, I do think the contradiction of "era accuracy" with the events is something that needs to be answered, but I doubt it will, because they are popular. You are right that it is applied inconsistently, I just don't wanna see it get any worse.

The "policy decision" thing is hilariously paper thin, sounds like something a politician would say.

Faust wrote:
Sorry, if you don't like the unique speical events that were different on each production shard that exist here. UOSA is not replicating any specific shard nor will it ever. The shard is it's own entity as if it was a new production shard being added to the mix. UO Second Age has it's own unique events however different they may be from your production shard experiences.

Yeah, it has it's own unique events that have a definite, quantifiable non-era accurate affect on the supposedly era accurate gameplay. How you guys justify the events and their effect is beyond me, the simplest bit of reasoning shows how transparent the arguments for the events are. I wish it would just be admitted that they aren't going anywhere because they are popular, rather than some flimsy false dichotomy about "policy" decisions.

I love the concept of this shard, but I think Van Raily is right about this particular thing.

[Manfromx]

I have less of a problem with them having contradictions in their stated objective. In fact I like how they stand up and admit they do.

I suppose as some knightly code they shouldn't hold those two ideas at the same time but they have a point. Events could vary shard to shard. So there is some flexibility. It's a pretty small thing to be picking at.

We're not going to get anywhere pointing at little cracks and using it as an excuse to allow more change (except the things we want changed). That's exactly what the majority posting here seem to think will happen. That one change will make us feel entitled to call the shots on what else should change. So stop adding fuel to the fire .

If things ever do change on this server (doubtful, but "if") or there is another server that you want run as smoothly as this one, we need to abandon that position of entitlement. Constructive debate over inclusions/exclusions etc should be welcome in a forum and shouldn't be considered detrimental to a game. However a game should stick to some basic vision and not be swayed away from whatever that is. (this applies to being T2A pure or, being T2A style)

That was sorta the point I was making earlier. That if things change you don't have to be appealing to the masses. Most successful games are made either because someone wants to tell a story or someone wants to play that game themselves. They just have to make it first . Stay true to your vision and it stands a chance.

Obviously the people here want to play T2A close to pure as possible. That's the vision. If somewhat limited in scope it's still talented people remaking a classic game. With a community to back it up. So a success really.

If the server starts to do poorly maybe that vision will shift.

I'm not convinced an unchanging MMO will work long term but this server has been up for 2 years (correct me if I'm wrong). So I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise .

One thing I think most of us can agree on is we need more servers like this. If you know what I mean.

I think you guys make a lot of good points. I agree with Van on a lot aside the contradiction thing. I just find some of what is being said very divisive.

[Chaos]

this server has been up for 2 years (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think we are closer to 3 years if not past the 3 year mark.

[Manfromx]

I think we are closer to 3 years if not past the 3 year mark.

I was impressed with 2. That's cool.

[Derrick]

Development on the shard started three years ago this month, and our 2nd anniversary was last December. I really do consider us still in beta, this thing is just not where I want it to be; in the last years we've filled in a lot of the missing OSI T2A features, and what's left is much more minor but still pending work.

We won't start rolling into UO:R once we're done though, although I do think that we can continue to add more features such as quests and what not for additional content far into the future.

I have a big question here, because I've seen this pattern a lot in threads like this. I posted a well thought out post two pages ago and got no response, although much was quoted from others on topics I addressed in that post. I often feel that either my posts aren't visible to anyone, or you find me unapproachable. I'd like to participate in this discussion too, so please don't hesitate to respond. My posts are just my opinions; if I didn't want feedback, I wouldn't bother posting. (I said this was a question, but i couldn't find a good place to put a question mark)

My opinion on events is that they are for the most part a minor nitpick. We could pull all the events off the schedule tomorrow and we would have a wholly accurate T2A shard, exempting a bunch of trophies floating around. When it comes to mechanics or UO:R housing that same fact does not apply; once you add UO:R housing, it's here, and like customized vendors (which is something we are removing and never added) it lingers forever.

There are things on the shard that are not T2A, but as I said (and did not feel heard) these things are mostly non-intentional. It's important to understand that the development of this shard has been retroactive. Three years ago I started with RunUO 2.0, an incomplete UO:R/AOS shard base, and have worked backwards since, patching out the elements which do not belong here and adding the elements that apply to all (or most) eras of UO but did not exist in the RunUO emulator. The only real intentional NEA system is the event system. We could discuss the merits and disdain for the scheduled events some more and many other threads have, but in the end the real work in making this shard has been the mechanical accuracy of the regular systems. (Again, all opinion.)

The events were implemented prior to the launch of the shard, and for the most part I agree that they have been valued by many players and disdained by less. One thing we have tried to do is have these scheduled events have less impact of "regular gameplay" and I think we've been pretty successful in that to date.

tl;dr: please read.

[Van Raily]

I read it, but it felt political, a mix of regurgitation of shard outlooks and goals as displayed on the front page and (to me) a brief tangent on specific matters that are extremely minor (armoires, was your example). Your recent post is far more thought provoking and interactive, in my perspective, and so there's "meat" there to discuss. I don't think it was anyone's intentions to ignore you, hehe. Although, I will say that some responses by other admins seem a little robotic, like I'm getting a servitor to remark on discussion (which lends itself to maybe matter-of-fact lists of information, but not so much in conversation on a topic) instead of a person. However, that said, I would prefer those responses than a hot-headed remark in retaliation to player feedback, hehe.

I want to say, for my own part, the things I mainly talk about are the intentional inaccuracies to the shard (these instanced "events", like CTF, bagball, etc.). These additions allow for valid discussions and efforts to make more additions to the shard for the exact same reason that these tournaments and the like were incorporated: to keep the playerbase happy and excited about SecondAge. Otherwise, why would these routine, automated games for rare prizes exist?

So things like new houses (read: UO:R housing, not custom housing) to break up the same houses you see everywhere (particularly the endless blocks of stone-and-plaster) are valid. Because these instanced events go so far as to disrupt "normal gameplay mechanics" (rules that limit natural game functions, alter hunger levels, do away with item usage, ban horses/skills/etc.), I would say even gameplay additions are reasonable (my personal suggestion would be bolas). Will it happen? Probably not, but the fact that there is precedent to allow these things to be brought up weekly if not daily shows that maybe people aren't so thrilled with 100% era-accuracy, or maybe they want some things changed (be they added to or taken from). That's all I'm saying.

It'd be interesting to turn off these routine games for 3 months and see how the population changes, if it changes at all.

As for the peas and stew and such, well, that's just ridiculous that the shard's been around for 2 years and no one's come out and said "stew isn't rare", and instead go to sell it on their vendors. Not the devs' fault so much as the players crying era-accuracy and ignoring that for so long (unless some of these items were given as rares during Thanksgiving, then shame on you, devs). *Shrugs* Minor, sure, I can agree with that, but after 2+ years? It should've been fixed by now, I think.

[benny-]

I have a big question here, because I've seen this pattern a lot in threads like this. I posted a well thought out post two pages ago and got no response, although much was quoted from others on topics I addressed in that post. I often feel that either my posts aren't visible to anyone, or you find me unapproachable. I'd like to participate in this discussion too, so please don't hesitate to respond. My posts are just my opinions; if I didn't want feedback, I wouldn't bother posting. (I said this was a question, but i couldn't find a good place to put a question mark)

Funny that you should say that...quite often when involved in lengthy discussions of major issues, the only response I hope to see is yours or other those of the other staff. I do like to see other players' opinions and perspectives on the issues of course, but quite often these debates go back and forth for countless pages while we wait for a "final word" on the matter.....so believe me, your posts are far from unread.

The only real intentional NEA system is the event system. We could discuss the merits and disdain for the scheduled events some more and many other threads have, but in the end the real work in making this shard has been the mechanical accuracy of the regular systems. (Again, all opinion.)

The events were implemented prior to the launch of the shard, and for the most part I agree that they have been valued by many players and disdained by less. One thing we have tried to do is have these scheduled events have less impact of "regular gameplay" and I think we've been pretty successful in that to date.

I'm glad to see some admittance of the fact that these events are inaccurate. This issue, like many others, has been defended over and over again with arguments that these are outside of the realm of accuracy and any such changes to existing systems would be "social engineering".

There are quite a few major issues with this server that I think should be addressed. All of them which have been dismissed with the phrase "social engineering" when clearly they are issues that have created large differences between the era and this server.

As you said above, the only real work that has been applied here has been mechanical in nature. Technical work that has been applied to changes within the game itself. All the while we allow mechanical features that were not available during the era, so long as they exist outside of the actual game.....even when they circumvent important mechanics of the game (such as light filters or Razor's ability to avoid the game's limitation of running one client on a computer.).

I often have the feeling that if these were features that were later added in to the client itself, they would be addressed by now. However since they exist outside of the game itself....we overlook these inaccuracies and say that to change them would be more social engineering.

I think that until these issues are better addressed, you will continue to see some discontent amongst many of the die hard t2a fans here in SA's community.....That is, so long as we continue to see methods used that were not a part of the era (such as botting, ghosting, archerbots, etc) or we see a change in how the game is played due to features that were not a part of the era (such as decreased activity in the place of limitless macroing) we (that is those who wish to better recreate the era) will continue to suggest changes.

Some of these areas have been addressed, or more accurately, hinted at. I remember Faust making mention of some third party app...a "pet project" that could replace Razor and offer more accurate third party features. There was also some talk of some potential methods thought up by the staff to eliminate multiclienting from one computer. More recently, one of the staff (I believe it was Kaivan) made a very good post on the events here and them being a major inaccuracy on the server.....which seemed to suggest the staff's intent to reduce the off map instances that we now have as events.

Anyway, there seems to be some suggestion that many of the problem areas on this server do intend to be dealt with, but we've yet to see any clear response on if they will be dealt with or if they will remain as they are as they are outside the realm of mechanical accuracy.

Sorry to get a bit rambly, and I'm not sure if this was exactly the type of response you wanted, but I thought I'd ask to see a more affirmative response to many of the inaccuracies on the server as this thread has turned into a debate on the credibility of the shard's stance on accuracy.