A part of the game you say ??

[NewToUOSA]

No matter what bugs or witch bugs worked and was active back then, doesnt matter at all - The problem here on UOSA is its not a bug.

If GMs just said DONT do this its ban reason.. it would be cool with me.. cuz thats how it is supose to be, also back then.. if u cheat or use bugs u do get banned.. end of story - and end of debate of this era accuracy,

Thats the main concern, its not that they dont fix it, but that they say that its allowed here..

If this was fair for everybody, i would also be allright with it. but its not fair at all..



corruption42 ---> just so u know i think you a big jerk (a bug).
Strawmen burns fast and drops even faster on the battlefield. (but then again you prolly the guy that just nukes people inside the houses while they afk)

Exactly. Very rational post sir and I think you hit on the main points. The debate on whether or not the bug was possible at X or Y time on X or Y server is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is no bug that undermines the way the game was intended to be played was ever sanctioned or encouraged by any "official" administration on any official server. However, that too is irrelevant because this is NOT an official server and the administrators of this server have every right to run it as they see fit.

Here's where I see the slippery slope... we have a lot of people politically supporting this house-killing "mechanism" even though clearly the entire point of player housing was to have a secure refuge. If this wasn't the case then why can't house doors be picked? Why can you ban someone from entering? Why are there secured chests? Without question, the design and purpose is to have houses be secure as long as the key is protected. I doubt the people that are vociferously campaigning to protect the house-killing exploit live in houses susceptible to it - the truth is they want OTHERS to be susceptible to it, not themselves. Indeed, their own defense is that players can go out and find spots that are NOT susceptible to the bug. There are forums designed to instruct players how to AVOID it, it's not something I've seen anyone suggest they are looking for themselves.

Parse all the words you wish and resort to any convoluted argument over mechanics and coding but the simple truth is all software has bugs and exploiting those bugs to undermine the intended game function/design is not acceptable in any game or software (hacking, viruses, etc.)... there is no deep philosophy we have to reference here.

If all houses were susceptible to LOS house-killing I don't think anyone would have a reason to gripe. But as you pointed out MW, it's simply not fair because most people advocating for the "exploit" are themselves immune from it. Fact of the matter is they like unfair and that's the point. It's not a big surprise since many are gankers and don't really want a challenge at all, they want the advantage at all times. People, I dare say like me, want challenge and thus want parity and a set of rules. I don't want to gank and grief because it's NOT a challenge. To me squaring off with someone and having a fair fight, win or lose, is the point of playing a game... otherwise it's not a game, it's more like the real world where the privileged get all the advantages and of course almost always come out on top.

All that said, it doesn't really matter because people in control want it in the game. Of course debating it on the forum is fun even if it is a lost cause.... hey, debating it is more fun than being house-ganked in-game!

[Scienter]

All that said, it doesn't really matter because people in control want it in the game. Of course debating it on the forum is fun even if it is a lost cause.... hey, debating it is more fun than being house-ganked in-game!

You jumped right into the end-game of UOSA faster than anyone else I know. The forums are surprisingly entertaining.
----
Anyways, I tried to encourage staff to take a position of taking an era accurate mindset of policy makers on OSI such as making business and efficiency driven decisions on matters like this, that would in turn maximize the population and satisifaction of users. This could potentially result in higher donations. Needless to say, all of the decisions made on OSI were driven to maximizing the bottom line, so again, why this position isn't taking is beyond me.

T2A had excellent attributes that seperated it from the rest of the UO servers that everyone going in would accept to be true:

-No trammel
-Lock downs
-Skill/Stat locks
-Stat loss to limit pking
-Hally Cycling
-Theiving attributes
-Second Age Map Area

UOSA has all this which is why it's able to hold on to a small rational population. The mission statement is clear that the mechanics and coding is the driven force that the administration wants to get correct to maximize their era-accuracy goal. However this is impossible and irrational goal because there has been technological advances, software advances, unclear patch notes or patch notes missing, and a demo is exactly that, a demo. There is no way that this era can be replicated exactly, and the mission statement should reflect that.

As a result of this irrational goal setting and mission statement, you have this current by-product that we've become familiar with known as UOSA. All of this irrationality has resulted in maintaining a population that stunts the growth of bringing in rational mindset individuals such as NewToUOSA and welcomes in an audience that, after reading their post, makes you want to punch a baby.

If you add a smeall tweak in a couple pvp mechanics, maintain the list mentioned previously, add events, make a few decent administrative decisions in regards to bombing in houses. You would have a fun shard people would enjoy playing and not leech every little last bit of entertainment from trolling the forums.

I feel like I have said all this before.

[chumbucket]

All that said, it doesn't really matter because people in control want it in the game. Of course debating it on the forum is fun even if it is a lost cause.... hey, debating it is more fun than being house-ganked in-game!

You jumped right into the end-game of UOSA faster than anyone else I know. The forums are surprisingly entertaining.
----
Anyways, I tried to encourage staff to take a position of taking an era accurate mindset of policy makers on OSI such as making business and efficiency driven decisions on matters like this, that would in turn maximize the population and satisifaction of users. This could potentially result in higher donations. Needless to say, all of the decisions made on OSI were driven to maximizing the bottom line, so again, why this position isn't taking is beyond me.

T2A had excellent attributes that seperated it from the rest of the UO servers that everyone going in would accept to be true:

-No trammel
-Lock downs
-Skill/Stat locks
-Stat loss to limit pking
-Hally Cycling
-Theiving attributes
-Second Age Map Area

UOSA has all this which is why it's able to hold on to a small rational population. The mission statement is clear that the mechanics and coding is the driven force that the administration wants to get correct to maximize their era-accuracy goal. However this is impossible and irrational goal because there has been technological advances, software advances, unclear patch notes or patch notes missing, and a demo is exactly that, a demo. There is no way that this era can be replicated exactly, and the mission statement should reflect that.

As a result of this irrational goal setting and mission statement, you have this current by-product that we've become familiar with known as UOSA. All of this irrationality has resulted in maintaining a population that stunts the growth of bringing in rational mindset individuals such as NewToUOSA and welcomes in an audience that, after reading their post, makes you want to punch a baby.

If you add a smeall tweak in a couple pvp mechanics, maintain the list mentioned previously, add events, make a few decent administrative decisions in regards to bombing in houses. You would have a fun shard people would enjoy playing and not leech every little last bit of entertainment from trolling the forums.

I feel like I have said all this before.

And yet you keep talking. Some people are doing something they enjoy doing in running this shard in the way they do. Going on about how "irrational" that is is really beside the point.

[Scienter]

.

[NewToUOSA]

And yet you keep talking. Some people are doing something they enjoy doing in running this shard in the way they do. Going on about how "irrational" that is is really beside the point.

If people didn't keep talking what would ever change? What BIG changes come after complete consensus? I would suggest that only when people champion a position and fight for it doggedly does it stand a chance for consideration...

I agree with Scienter but would suggest we replace the use of "irrational" with the word "immature." I do think there is an irrational component to the current policy but not necessarily, and to be sure it's a term that may inflame passions and unnecessarily offend some.

If we are honest I think we can all agree to some degree that ganking noobs, town-killing, LOS house-killing exploits, griefing and other similar behavior appeals to the immature. I always smile at the defense of these behaviors when inevitably they use the "sand-box" defense... the irony is quite humorous. The sand-box is where many of them belong! If the goal of the community is to appeal to the immature and build a population of immature people then the policies that reinforce this behavior make a lot of sense. If, however, the goal is to build a larger mature (or mixed) population then policies should reinforce game-play that appeals to adults (or at least mature adults). As Scienter mentioned, mature people are also much more likely to financially support the community and behave constructively. Since most gankers probably live in their parent"s basement it's less likely they will be financial benefactors of the server.

That's not to say that PK'ing, playing a villain, being a thief, being a murderer or other similar activities are immature at all. I think we all know the difference between these roles and those of griefer, exploiter and ganker. It all comes down to encouraging the growth of the community in the direction that most benefits the server and helps it grow. Based on my own observations I think it seems the majority of the server population is actually composed of mature and committed members but it seems manifestly obvious to anyone playing that the immature play styles dominate and define the server.

I also think there is another larger irony to consider; I think it's more than possible that many people that lobby for the current "exploit-centric" policy would actually prefer the opposite. The primary activity on UOSA currently is gank-or-be-ganked, freedom of play at all costs style of anarchy and debauchery. This can be fun, sure, but the alternative I think is more appealing for most people. Organized events, rivalries, organized guild conflict with some imaginative story-line, fostering the growth of new players, helping and expanding new players, increasing donation$, and challenging group PvP that relies on skill rather than criminality.

I know, I know... people want to play in the sandbox!

[corruption42]

And yet you keep talking. Some people are doing something they enjoy doing in running this shard in the way they do. Going on about how "irrational" that is is really beside the point.

If people didn't keep talking what would ever change? What BIG changes come after complete consensus? I would suggest that only when people champion a position and fight for it doggedly does it stand a chance for consideration...

I agree with Scienter but would suggest we replace the use of "irrational" with the word "immature." I do think there is an irrational component to the current policy but not necessarily, and to be sure it's a term that may inflame passions and unnecessarily offend some.

If we are honest I think we can all agree to some degree that ganking noobs, town-killing, LOS house-killing exploits, griefing and other similar behavior appeals to the immature. I always smile at the defense of these behaviors when inevitably they use the "sand-box" defense... the irony is quite humorous. The sand-box is where many of them belong! If the goal of the community is to appeal to the immature and build a population of immature people then the policies that reinforce this behavior make a lot of sense. If, however, the goal is to build a larger mature (or mixed) population then policies should reinforce game-play that appeals to adults (or at least mature adults). As Scienter mentioned, mature people are also much more likely to financially support the community and behave constructively. Since most gankers probably live in their parent"s basement it's less likely they will be financial benefactors of the server.

That's not to say that PK'ing, playing a villain, being a thief, being a murderer or other similar activities are immature at all. I think we all know the difference between these roles and those of griefer, exploiter and ganker. It all comes down to encouraging the growth of the community in the direction that most benefits the server and helps it grow. Based on my own observations I think it seems the majority of the server population is actually composed of mature and committed members but it seems manifestly obvious to anyone playing that the immature play styles dominate and define the server.

I also think there is another larger irony to consider; I think it's more than possible that many people that lobby for the current "exploit-centric" policy would actually prefer the opposite. The primary activity on UOSA currently is gank-or-be-ganked, freedom of play at all costs style of anarchy and debauchery. This can be fun, sure, but the alternative I think is more appealing for most people. Organized events, rivalries, organized guild conflict with some imaginative story-line, fostering the growth of new players, helping and expanding new players, increasing donation$, and challenging group PvP that relies on skill rather than criminality.

I know, I know... people want to play in the sandbox!

Your problem, is you are taking this personal. You are treating it like everyone that is arguing for dropping this argument, is arguing for this issue to remain. We're not; despite what you may believe. We are simply saying that administration -- the ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER IN THIS CONVERSATION -- have already made their opinion on this matter ABUNDANTLY clear. What you, and Scienter, are proposing, does not fall in lines with the development goals Derrick and company have laid out plain as day.

You seem to believe that anyone who's not against this concept must be all for it, and spends all day every day griefing. Simply put, you're wrong. Dead wrong. Pretty much everyone arguing for the "end this nonsense and quit acting immature" angle, is just tired of this entitlement complex that people on this shard have. As chum pointed out, this is a free shard, developed by a group of people who set in stone what their design goals were 5 years ago. They have not swayed from those goals and things like this stay in because of those goals. You take the good with the bad; and if you're not able to then I feel sorry for you. But if you seriously think this server was developed FOR griefers, and not just that griefers are attracted to UO in general, you're simply mistaken.

Just because you are a member of this shard -- just like all of us -- does not give you a special permission to start demanding specific expectations from the management of this shard. There's no bonuses for donation, there's no buying your way to power -- there is only the design goals of the shard maintainers. This has helped keep the world here stable and running for over 5 years -- why would they change it now?

The policy decision by Derrick and staff, btw, is not the immature thing in this conversation. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that is.

[Braden]

I bet uosa allready lost alot of people due to this failure / bug and most of all seeing that the GMs is reject to fix it, this just gives Uosa a bad view for the Uo player in in gernaral.

In the timeframe you are indicating, our numbers went up actually; though, unrelated to the LOS issue I suspect.

[Braden]

Il end this debate by saying that Derrick and his staff is completly wrong about this era accurate shit. GMs are not gods GMs doesnt know everything and becuz they say it was like this back then doesnt make it right. beside this is a runUO bug so i dotn even know where they get these data from. but ye fuck it..

We do VERY extensive research before introducing or changing anything in UOSA. If you want proof that this bug existed, please talk to Kaivan or download the UO demo (released in 1997) (freeware). You will find the bug present there.

[NewToUOSA]

And yet you keep talking. Some people are doing something they enjoy doing in running this shard in the way they do. Going on about how "irrational" that is is really beside the point.

If people didn't keep talking what would ever change? What BIG changes come after complete consensus? I would suggest that only when people champion a position and fight for it doggedly does it stand a chance for consideration...

I agree with Scienter but would suggest we replace the use of "irrational" with the word "immature." I do think there is an irrational component to the current policy but not necessarily, and to be sure it's a term that may inflame passions and unnecessarily offend some.

If we are honest I think we can all agree to some degree that ganking noobs, town-killing, LOS house-killing exploits, griefing and other similar behavior appeals to the immature. I always smile at the defense of these behaviors when inevitably they use the "sand-box" defense... the irony is quite humorous. The sand-box is where many of them belong! If the goal of the community is to appeal to the immature and build a population of immature people then the policies that reinforce this behavior make a lot of sense. If, however, the goal is to build a larger mature (or mixed) population then policies should reinforce game-play that appeals to adults (or at least mature adults). As Scienter mentioned, mature people are also much more likely to financially support the community and behave constructively. Since most gankers probably live in their parent"s basement it's less likely they will be financial benefactors of the server.

That's not to say that PK'ing, playing a villain, being a thief, being a murderer or other similar activities are immature at all. I think we all know the difference between these roles and those of griefer, exploiter and ganker. It all comes down to encouraging the growth of the community in the direction that most benefits the server and helps it grow. Based on my own observations I think it seems the majority of the server population is actually composed of mature and committed members but it seems manifestly obvious to anyone playing that the immature play styles dominate and define the server.

I also think there is another larger irony to consider; I think it's more than possible that many people that lobby for the current "exploit-centric" policy would actually prefer the opposite. The primary activity on UOSA currently is gank-or-be-ganked, freedom of play at all costs style of anarchy and debauchery. This can be fun, sure, but the alternative I think is more appealing for most people. Organized events, rivalries, organized guild conflict with some imaginative story-line, fostering the growth of new players, helping and expanding new players, increasing donation$, and challenging group PvP that relies on skill rather than criminality.

I know, I know... people want to play in the sandbox!

Your problem, is you are taking this personal. You are treating it like everyone that is arguing for dropping this argument, is arguing for this issue to remain. We're not; despite what you may believe. We are simply saying that administration -- the ONLY PEOPLE THAT MATTER IN THIS CONVERSATION -- have already made their opinion on this matter ABUNDANTLY clear. What you, and Scienter, are proposing, does not fall in lines with the development goals Derrick and company have laid out plain as day.

You seem to believe that anyone who's not against this concept must be all for it, and spends all day every day griefing. Simply put, you're wrong. Dead wrong. Pretty much everyone arguing for the "end this nonsense and quit acting immature" angle, is just tired of this entitlement complex that people on this shard have. As chum pointed out, this is a free shard, developed by a group of people who set in stone what their design goals were 5 years ago. They have not swayed from those goals and things like this stay in because of those goals. You take the good with the bad; and if you're not able to then I feel sorry for you. But if you seriously think this server was developed FOR griefers, and not just that griefers are attracted to UO in general, you're simply mistaken.

Just because you are a member of this shard -- just like all of us -- does not give you a special permission to start demanding specific expectations from the management of this shard. There's no bonuses for donation, there's no buying your way to power -- there is only the design goals of the shard maintainers. This has helped keep the world here stable and running for over 5 years -- why would they change it now?

The policy decision by Derrick and staff, btw, is not the immature thing in this conversation. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that is.

You need to read what I actually said because you continue to misrepresent just about everything I said just about every time you make a post. It's just hyperbole so I won't bother to go line by line and demonstrate that fact to you. Just a single example, find where I said there is a special bonus for donations or that anyone is buying power? Ludacrous, and of course naive because last I checked donations are accepted and welcomed by the staff.

You seem to be convinced that dictates from the staff are akin to holy declarations from some holy pontiff! If that is the case why is there a discussion board? Why doesn't "staff" shut it down and demand absolute subordination? I think you fail to understand that while it is a private server and some individuals are charged with making policy they are dependent on people to join and play or they have nothing. If you really respect Derrick and staff then you will respect that they have designed a forum for feedback... feedback from members. Until that changes you are simply being a hypocrite demanding we agree with all staff policies while not accepting the staff owned, sanctioned and run forum. Why do you selectively pick and choose what you respect? If the staff doesn't want feedback they will shut down the forums or at least delete threads like this one and I will stop posting my opinion.

Are you a staff member? If not, I have no idea why you think you speak for "Derrick and the staff" or why you feel the need to defend their policy? Especially considering your insinuation that you do not or may not even agree with it? Are you just kissing ass? It's ironic that you vehemently defend the sand-box open nature of UOSA "in-game" and yet you want to stifle all freedom of expression in the forums... interesting dichotomy going on there.

The truth is the server is better off with outspoken members that challenge the policies in place and the fact that they have not changed in five years, as you point out repeatedly, precisely because they have not evolved for so long. The world changes, evolves and progresses and so to should this little sandbox... change isn't always easy but it is almost always necessary to avoid extinction. Evolution is a principle of the universe and not one that should be casually ignored. People must change, businesses must change, countries must change, armies must change, species must change and yes even UO game communities must change or suffer stagnation or extinction.

I'm not making demands, I'm helping to save UOSA!

[NewToUOSA]

Il end this debate by saying that Derrick and his staff is completly wrong about this era accurate shit. GMs are not gods GMs doesnt know everything and becuz they say it was like this back then doesnt make it right. beside this is a runUO bug so i dotn even know where they get these data from. but ye fuck it..

We do VERY extensive research before introducing or changing anything in UOSA. If you want proof that this bug existed, please talk to Kaivan or download the UO demo (released in 1997) (freeware). You will find the bug present there.

But is the proof a bug existed even pertinent? There were bugs that made logging onto the server extremely difficult at times but is that something you would deliberately recreate? Why would you? I'm just curious why the issue isn't about the deliberate (re)introduction of a bug that clearly was a programming error and not consistent with the intended game design and mechanics. Strict adherence to programming code at some set point in time doesn't seem to be sacrosanct - because clearly there are exceptions to that rule in the game at this very moment. I'm just not following the logic I suppose, or it's not based on logic at all.

I dunno, I'm not trying to be difficult but it seems obvious that bugs are things to be fixed and not codified into programming dogma. It would just be simpler if the administration defended the policy by admitting that they want LOS house exploits because they like it. Case closed, nothing to debate... like it or move on.

[Scienter]

This shard needs more people like you NewToUOSA. If you still have any interest to play, I will give you resources that will last you a month. That is usually sufficient time to mess around and determine if the shard is worth playing. If not, you can give the resources to other players of your choice.

[NewToUOSA]

This shard needs more people like you NewToUOSA. If you still have any interest to play, I will give you resources that will last you a month. That is usually sufficient time to mess around and determine if the shard is worth playing. If not, you can give the resources to other players of your choice.

You are very kind and I thank you for your sentiments but I suspect many would disagree with you!
Accepting your generous offer, I fear, would only serve to feed the perception that I am looking for a handout and demanding a challenge-free experience so I must thankfully decline your offer. I haven't logged on since being house-bombed (it's a colossal mess if you only you could see it) but I understand that a two-week timer threatens the existence of my little single-room slum tenement in the middle of Baghdad. If I gather up my scattered belongings, what's left of them, I suppose I could collect the blackened corrugated tin that comprises my shanty and move it to a new location. Carcasses are all that remain of my horses but I think I can manage to carry it all with my 100 strength. I think I need a good Realtor though since I've not noticed any flat neighborhoods in the region that are not threatened by menacing projectiles from the sky.

[Kaivan]

Il end this debate by saying that Derrick and his staff is completly wrong about this era accurate shit. GMs are not gods GMs doesnt know everything and becuz they say it was like this back then doesnt make it right. beside this is a runUO bug so i dotn even know where they get these data from. but ye fuck it..

We do VERY extensive research before introducing or changing anything in UOSA. If you want proof that this bug existed, please talk to Kaivan or download the UO demo (released in 1997) (freeware). You will find the bug present there.

Small note: The demo is dated from mid-1998, and the LoS behavior is the same on OSI servers today.

It would just be simpler if the administration defended the policy by admitting that they want LOS house exploits because they like it. Case closed, nothing to debate... like it or move on.

We don't introduce mechanics because we like or dislike them, we introduce them because they are accurate.

[Pro]

I think the argument is what distinguishes this error accurate bug from the others that aren't present (gold duping for instance). That's all i want answered.

[Pirul]

I think the argument is what distinguishes this error accurate bug from the others that aren't present (gold duping for instance). That's all i want answered.

Maybe....just maybe, duping creates wealth for an individual from thin air thus creating a spiraling inflation that potentially has no end creating an impossible entry barrier for new players while the other creates...oh wait...what does it really do?? Kill afk rich mofos in their towers, keeps and castles, which can be avoided 100%?? Kill people inside a limited number of homes which are placed in vulnerable places, which can be avoided 100%??

I guess you're right, both are the same basically.