Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

For ideas on how to make Second Age a better shard. Can it get any better? Maybe.
Forum rules
Posts in this forum are expected to be constructive, realistic and civil. Inflamatory or off topic posts will be removed.
User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Menkaure wrote:So If I found an exploit that lets me res in a house and then go loot said house, this is just an exploit and not something banable, thats what Im hearing right?
Exploits are not banable, except for duping then, correct?

By the way, is the dismounted horse "all follow me" really an exploit? (by the way, horses didnt get fatigued that quick back in the day, im 100% positive of that, and I dont care what rule states what, it didnt happen that fast).

Regardless, my point is, if I find an exploit that lets me ressurect my character in a strangers house and then I go loot tha thouse, your saying I would not be banned because its the same thing as killing people in towers, right? Gotcha.
First time? Probably not. Let it known to a small portion of the shard, don't report it as a bug and let it be exploited for months prior to discovery? Up to administrations discretion.

Regardless, you are not getting it; Just because the LoS issue exists, does not necessitate the inclusion of ABSOLUTELY ANY OTHER issue, because other issues are separate. This is the single point that dissenters here seems to happily ignore (Pac, I'm lookin' your way... thats all the response you get.) -- just because A exists, does not necessitate nor negate the existence of B. Its really as simple as that. Quit trying to argue that an orange equals a telephone, because they are not equivalent and you weaken ANY point you might have had by going that route.
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

Menkaure
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 3752
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:30 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Menkaure »

corruption42 wrote:
Menkaure wrote:So If I found an exploit that lets me res in a house and then go loot said house, this is just an exploit and not something banable, thats what Im hearing right?
Exploits are not banable, except for duping then, correct?

By the way, is the dismounted horse "all follow me" really an exploit? (by the way, horses didnt get fatigued that quick back in the day, im 100% positive of that, and I dont care what rule states what, it didnt happen that fast).

Regardless, my point is, if I find an exploit that lets me ressurect my character in a strangers house and then I go loot tha thouse, your saying I would not be banned because its the same thing as killing people in towers, right? Gotcha.
First time? Probably not. Let it known to a small portion of the shard, don't report it as a bug and let it be exploited for months prior to discovery? Up to administrations discretion.

Regardless, you are not getting it; Just because the LoS issue exists, does not necessitate the inclusion of ABSOLUTELY ANY OTHER issue, because other issues are separate. This is the single point that dissenters here seems to happily ignore (Pac, I'm lookin' your way... thats all the response you get.) -- just because A exists, does not necessitate nor negate the existence of B. Its really as simple as that. Quit trying to argue that an orange equals a telephone, because they are not equivalent and you weaken ANY point you might have had by going that route.

See thats where we differ in opinion. you say "an orange equals a telephone" I look at it as an orange and an apple. They are different, but they are still both fruit. To continue this argument is pointless, that I agree with. My only point is, you cant pick and choose what exploits/incorrect mechanics should be allowed and what ones shouldnt be, plain and simple. I respect your opinion, but I feel mine, is more accurate.
GO SKINS
Catskills 1997-2002ish

User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Menkaure wrote:
corruption42 wrote:
Menkaure wrote:So If I found an exploit that lets me res in a house and then go loot said house, this is just an exploit and not something banable, thats what Im hearing right?
Exploits are not banable, except for duping then, correct?

By the way, is the dismounted horse "all follow me" really an exploit? (by the way, horses didnt get fatigued that quick back in the day, im 100% positive of that, and I dont care what rule states what, it didnt happen that fast).

Regardless, my point is, if I find an exploit that lets me ressurect my character in a strangers house and then I go loot tha thouse, your saying I would not be banned because its the same thing as killing people in towers, right? Gotcha.
First time? Probably not. Let it known to a small portion of the shard, don't report it as a bug and let it be exploited for months prior to discovery? Up to administrations discretion.

Regardless, you are not getting it; Just because the LoS issue exists, does not necessitate the inclusion of ABSOLUTELY ANY OTHER issue, because other issues are separate. This is the single point that dissenters here seems to happily ignore (Pac, I'm lookin' your way... thats all the response you get.) -- just because A exists, does not necessitate nor negate the existence of B. Its really as simple as that. Quit trying to argue that an orange equals a telephone, because they are not equivalent and you weaken ANY point you might have had by going that route.

See thats where we differ in opinion. you say "an orange equals a telephone" I look at it as an orange and an apple. They are different, but they are still both fruit. To continue this argument is pointless, that I agree with. My only point is, you cant pick and choose what exploits/incorrect mechanics should be allowed and what ones shouldnt be, plain and simple. I respect your opinion, but I feel mine, is more accurate.

Except that ignores the reality of software development (and like it or not, that IS what any change listed above, related to eachother or not, boils down to -- full on software development, writing raw code to do what you expect). The orange and telephone comparison is apt, because these are completely disconnected problems, with completely disconnected fixes -- and regardless of you seeing a similarity in the fact that they are all mechanics that you feel are incorrect, that does not make them equal. Simply put, problems require different amounts of work, and also affect the actual core of gameplay differing amounts -- these factors determine whether something is game breaking or not. That is why they are not equal, and why trying to say that because mechanic A is broken, mechanic B thusly must be. Its a silly strawman argument that does nothing to actually further understanding of A) why the problem will or will not be corrected, and B) what the problem affects in game, and why consensus is that its game breaking. If you're not aiming for either of these two goals, frankly you're just wasting time.

Edit: I'm tired of rehashing the exact same point, so I'll put it as bluntly as possible: When you come in here and start complaining about mechanics that should be broken because you feel another mechanic is broken, you not only weaken any point that you had to make, you make yourself look like a sniveling 5 year old who didn't get your way. These questions have been answered dozens of times on this forum -- I had no problem finding the why's on things like this -- and its absolutely ridiculous for grown adults to kick and scream like little babies because something that they think is broken, in actuality, isn't. Its not constructive, its not beneficial, and it makes these forums look pathetic.
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

Menkaure
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 3752
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 7:30 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Menkaure »

I’m not going to keep arguing on the point, as I said in my last post, its pointless.
However, as for the "5 year old" comment. If you read all of my posts, I have said before, I never got killed by this, nor anyone I know got killed by this exploit, I’m voicing my opinion, which, isn’t that what a forum is for? Whether or not it helps the argument, is irrelevant. I feel as that I always have been respectful, calm, and never have once spoken in any sort of "tone" (although you can’t really use the word tone here) that was considered whiney, or condescending in any way.
With that being said, I do want to say, if we are talking an error in code of programming or some type of software mechanism, then so be it, let the problem lay. If you read in my earlier post, my point was you don’t have to fix the issue mechanically, but maybe at least make it "illegal" to do. Just like an exploit in general. You do it, so be it, it can’t be fixed, but if your caught doing it, then consider it a suspension/warning/ban whatever it may be.
GO SKINS
Catskills 1997-2002ish

User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Menkaure wrote:I’m not going to keep arguing on the point, as I said in my last post, its pointless.
However, as for the "5 year old" comment. If you read all of my posts, I have said before, I never got killed by this, nor anyone I know got killed by this exploit, I’m voicing my opinion, which, isn’t that what a forum is for? Whether or not it helps the argument, is irrelevant. I feel as that I always have been respectful, calm, and never have once spoken in any sort of "tone" (although you can’t really use the word tone here) that was considered whiney, or condescending in any way.
With that being said, I do want to say, if we are talking an error in code of programming or some type of software mechanism, then so be it, let the problem lay. If you read in my earlier post, my point was you don’t have to fix the issue mechanically, but maybe at least make it "illegal" to do. Just like an exploit in general. You do it, so be it, it can’t be fixed, but if your caught doing it, then consider it a suspension/warning/ban whatever it may be.

Then it comes back to the issue of policing it, how to determine who has commit the act, and how sever the punishment -- all of which would further require development time. Yes, I'm talking actual programming of code -- the RunUO base is C code, and all components must be developed to functionality when dealing with a customized shard like this one.

The 5 year old comment isn't about you directly as much as it is the attitude you're showing (and its far from exclusive from you -- these types of whining and comparing two completely un-alike issues have been going on pretty much since the start of the shard) and its unbecoming of anyone who professes to be an adult. The idea that because house killing via LoS and housing type issues exist, that therefore gold duping must exist is childish and no one gains anything by rehashing the same tired old arguments that have been shot down time and time again.

This forum isn't just for general discussion. As per the forum header on every post in this subform:
Posts in this forum are expected to be constructive, realistic and civil. Inflamatory or off topic posts will be removed.
...how exactly is insisting that because of the LoS issues, gold duping must therefore exist constructive, realistic or civil? Its trying to bend the will of administration by appealing to other unrelated issues -- something they've stated time and time again will NOT sway their opinions -- and it does nothing to further any conversations or make any point.
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

User avatar
Guerrilla
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:04 am
Location: Dirty South USA

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Guerrilla »

Well the thread is over a YEAR old next month, and no changes. I suppose it's safe to say that this exploit will remain. (being killed inside a house on "safe" tiles)

With that being said, I only have one more question to ask:

If we can keep something like this , which is clearly an exploit, why don't you guys just bring the events back in?

I'd much rather deal with reds avoiding statloss, then being killed afk in a house for no gain for either party. (when auto-pulled into event arena upon death while red , while being signed up for an event)

Because, after all, if your afk killed on a stat pk, you're going to remain in stat. With the current mechanics being abused.
Image
Halleluyah
<DemonArkanis> hopefully ill go to hell and not have to listen to your bullshit

User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Guerrilla wrote:Well the thread is over a YEAR old next month, and no changes. I suppose it's safe to say that this exploit will remain. (being killed inside a house on "safe" tiles)

With that being said, I only have one more question to ask:

If we can keep something like this , which is clearly an exploit, why don't you guys just bring the events back in?

I'd much rather deal with reds avoiding statloss, then being killed afk in a house for no gain for either party. (when auto-pulled into event arena upon death while red , while being signed up for an event)

Because, after all, if your afk killed on a stat pk, you're going to remain in stat. With the current mechanics being abused.
Yes, because being killed in a house is equivalent to introducing an entire secondary system.

These 'If A then B' logical fallacies that you people constantly come up with aren't just patently incorrect and indefensible.... they're just sad. If this is the best argument you've got against the LoS bug, or to re-introduce events, then this is truly just pathetic. Don't even bother trying, because all you're doing is falsely convincing yourself that because one thing exists another should too. This is wrong, plain and simple; the two things have absolutely no relation. Period.

If any reasonable adult can't see that these half-hearted appeals don't do anything but make you look like a child that didn't get what he wants for dinner, then I really worry about many of you.
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Here, in fact, I'll even save you some time -- cuz Derrick puts it far more eloquently than I could.
Derrick wrote: This has been addressed in other posts.
The OSI code clearly shows that indestructible clothing is possible, and other threads have suggested that items such as these may have existed. That's not the reason why they exist here, but it is a very valid counter to the accuracy concerns you're raising.

The tower/castle/keep walls thing isn't even similar to clothing destruction issue though, as it's being asked for the housing walls that something inaccurate be globally and specifically coded in clear violation of what we know, but the clothing issue was created by the intention of increasing accuracy for new clothing and simply left behind a group of items that may not be accurate (if not in terms of existence, certainly in terms of quantity), yet clothing decay and armor damage is still roughly only very similar to OSI, while the LOS code and building architecture is exactly precise to OSI as it currently stands on Second Age.

There are many mechanics on UOSA that could be made more accurate; but it's a logical fallacy that the failure or delay in fixing one mechanic necessitates breaking the accuracy of another, especially one that's completely unrelated. It would be reasonable to consider removing an accurate mechanic temporarily if an inaccurate mechanic (such as the ability to cast EV's into houses) could not be remedied immediately (which in this case we did). We did this in the case of insta-res, and it's still intended for us to find a way to fix that; but due to the client side nature of the original insta-res function, it's been challenging.

This type of argument is used again and again, but I honestly don't consider it to be a valid point of debate. A valid conclusion should be able to stand on it's own merit, and not need be supported by other unrelated results. That is to say, the chain of logic for keeping era-accurate mechanics relating to housing does not include clothing, nor does the chain of logic that resulted in the clothing include housing. They are separate issues, but it is believed the logic is consistently applied across all these points of contention.

There are valid points to be made in regards to the clothing, such as the point matron made that when we changed the katana speed it would have been more consistent for us to have left grandfathered katanas behind instead of changing all the existing ones. That point is well taken, and tbh it hadn't been considered when the change was made, and certainly should have been.

If the goal is to point out mistakes we've made in the past you should find no shortage of material; however I hope that it can be seen that over the years we have become more consistent and not less so.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The following was posted as I was composing this:
By that logic staff should grandfather already placed homes and make only new homes susceptible to the LOS bug. Most players that placed keeps/towers/castles placed them with the knowledge that they were safe places to macro.
They weren't safe though, and haven't been for years. This is only recently discovered, but it's not new, it just wasn't known to most players.

Were it the however case that this was something that was intentionally added, such as the katana speed changes, you'd have a good point to this in terms of consistency.
Source: posting.php?mode=quote&f=26&p=358086

Simply put -- your argument is invalid. Try again, and try harder next time.
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

User avatar
Guerrilla
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:04 am
Location: Dirty South USA

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Guerrilla »

Corruption42 said:
Yes, because being killed in a house is equivalent to introducing an entire secondary system.
I don't know if it would be "introducing" anything, for reality's sake, an introduction only happens when something is new, meaning never existed prior to it's introduction. http://my.uosecondage.com/Events/Schedule clearly shows us, that this has existed. So please don't make things up in my thread going forward. Thanks in advance.
Image
Halleluyah
<DemonArkanis> hopefully ill go to hell and not have to listen to your bullshit

User avatar
corruption42
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by corruption42 »

Guerrilla wrote:Corruption42 said:
Yes, because being killed in a house is equivalent to introducing an entire secondary system.
I don't know if it would be "introducing" anything, for reality's sake, an introduction only happens when something is new, meaning never existed prior to it's introduction. http://my.uosecondage.com/Events/Schedule clearly shows us, that this has existed. So please don't make things up in my thread going forward. Thanks in advance.

Apparently you missed the next paragraph in my comment, and predictably ignored everything else, as you seem to do often. I'll quote it again for your benefit; though you should probably go read it in its entirety again since you clearly missed it:

If this is the best argument you've got against the LoS bug, or to re-introduce events, then this is truly just pathetic.


Would you like to make another attempt at a pedantic response that completely ignores that your answers are already given to you, and you just choose not to accept them?
Valorite: The metal with mettle.

Light Shade
UOSA Subscriber!
UOSA Subscriber!
Posts: 2567
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Trammel

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Light Shade »

This shard seeks to replicate, to the best of the Staff's ability, the Mechanical Accuracy from this Era. Mechanical Accuracy does not mean the environment of the Era. I argued till I was blue in the face that the LoS Bug created a game that, effectively, never actually existed and you'll be hard pressed to refute that regardless of a handful of people being aware of it.

It simply does not matter. Its the Mechanical Accuracy of the CODE that is the goal of this shard. I wish this shard enforced most of the Policies of OSI, as it was the CODE & POLICIES that created the gameplay environment, but this is not the goal here.

They're giving you a free server. They clearly tell you what they're goals are and what they are not. I've learned that if I just accept that (and get out there and play the game as it is) that I have a much more enjoyable experience. Just let it go.

In short: Just because the vast majority of the players had no idea of this bug and it effectively did not exist in era is irrelevant. The code is what matters.

The sooner you quit trying to change the goals of the shard and get out there and just play, the happier you'll be.

-L/S
Image
[20:08] <@Kaivan> We have a ridable Maahes in Green Acres.
[10:00] <TheBreadman> leeds did a takeover on secondage
[10:00] <@Derrick> hax


Tom: Get bad bro

Hicha
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 2264
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 10:03 am
Location: out selling permits

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Hicha »

Light Shade wrote:The sooner you quit trying to change the goals of the shard and get out there and just play, the happier you'll be.

-L/S
Excellent point, and probably one of the most hardest points to understand as UOSA is completely unique from every other UO shard out there.

On that note, I found a really great google group thread on a guy who reported, in detail, a gold dupe exploit and was promptly banned for addressing it in public. link.

Related, here's a short one on teleporting into castles: link.
Image
"I consider most of you NPC's that inhabit the single player game that I am here to enjoy." - MatronDeWinter

User avatar
Blaise
UOSA Donor!!
UOSA Donor!!
Posts: 2466
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Trammel

Re: Getting killed in the middle of a tower?

Post by Blaise »

LOL@Guerrilla, yet again.

What, not happy on your other shard anymore? Still trying to turn UOSA into something that it is not and was never intended to be?

Glad to see Lightshade came around and realized that you either drive the car with square wheels and no brakes, and like it, or just don't drive it at all.
Est Sularus oth Mithas

Post Reply