"If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:46 pm

Been back a while now, helping out some new people who make some fair observations about numbers on this shard and comparisons elsewhere.

Is it time to soften the T2A accuracy policy and make some populous adjustments?

The purpose of the policy is to reach T2A accuracy but in doing so there seems to be a lack of T2A accuracy because of the lack of player to player interaction. It's a real shame.

Events, stables, CL/MS under tower/keep/castle walls, so on and so on... What would you change if the policy was softened?

Soma · Post by **Soma** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:51 pm

trammel pls so i can hide there when bad things happen to me in my tower

Capitalist · Post by **Capitalist** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:54 pm

Rick Scarf · Post by **Rick Scarf** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:57 am

You know what really is missing in terms of T2A accuracy? Paying $10/mo

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:09 am

I don't mind castle/tower walls bug, capitalist said that lots of people quit because of it though.

Why do you people get so angry about quite a simple topic?

Post by **Boomland Jenkins** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:48 am

We've had the conversation before, and I agree that the home LOS issue is a concern. I suspect anyone who found a way to abuse it on OSI would have been jailed awfully quick based on how jail-happy OSI could be to anyone exploiting mechanics like that. This is not something other UOSA staff agrees with me on. The LOS bug doesn't make it "feel like t2a" at all and I place in the same basket as duping and other game-breaking "mechanics".

As for events, I should be back to running my weekly mini-games, a new global storyline/event (similar format to Dark Secrets) has been in the works, and I have a Christmas event in the pipeline. I'll continue to work with what tools I'm given for as long as I'm able to.

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:53 pm

Boomland Jenkins wrote:We've had the conversation before, and I agree that the home LOS issue is a concern. I suspect anyone who found a way to abuse it on OSI would have been jailed awfully quick based on how jail-happy OSI could be to anyone exploiting mechanics like that. This is not something other UOSA staff agrees with me on. The LOS bug doesn't make it "feel like t2a" at all and I place in the same basket as duping and other game-breaking "mechanics".

As for events, I should be back to running my weekly mini-games, a new global storyline/event (similar format to [url=viewtopic.php?f=148&t=60937]Dark Secrets) has been in the works, and I have a Christmas event in the pipeline. I'll continue to work with what tools I'm given for as long as I'm able to.

Thank you Boomland - no doubt you put in a lot of hard work. Halloween was awesome. Looking forward to the next storyline!

I think open forums discussions are a good thing. Even entrenched rules and principles can be discussed, surely.

T2A UO was something that made a lot of people very happy, it's disheartening to see small things affecting the underlying health of the shard.

UO is an MMORPG, it's no fun in single player mode...

Eastwood · Post by **Eastwood** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:41 pm

I think the loss of server population has a lot to do with the fact that UO was kind of a niche game in its prime, UO emulator server locked in a specific time phase is even more niche. A lot of the people who are and were interested in playing this version of UO again, came, accomplished all of what they needed to do to satisfy their nostalgic gaming needs, and moved on.

I don't think the server population has as much to do with server mechanics as the above opinion from myself.

If we want to talk mechanics, I think that the biggest problem for the server population is actually the ease of playing UO in this modern era with 3 clients, razor, a huge knowledge base, low latency, and less competition for in game resources. The problem is that people come to the server, get established, and "win" by their own terms too quickly and easily, then move on. It prevents a lot more communities and guilds from taking root and sticking around because the population is a little too transient. I still wouldn't recommend making it artificially more challenging.

I think this server's peak has already occurred, and we can only hope that the admins will keep this server running for as long as people have UOT2A nostalgia.

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:14 pm

I dunno man, there's plenty of hardened UO addicts out there awaiting their reawakening.

Just like people who like old cars, old planes, old electronics... They are out there.

It's a niche but it is sizeable, much bigger than 140 clients at a time big.

Players attract players, that's the way UO works. A functioning UO society needs players.

Afterall, T2A UO wasn't about coding or programming or specific mechanics. No, T2A UO was about a plethora of intricate social interactions. T2A UO is that place in your heart, an ethereal reality that exists beyond the machinery of computer code.

The game is pointless without a saturation point of other players, and other players require a certain amount of appeasement to keep them involved. Once numbers start building up then momentum takes hold. Numbers beget numbers.

The Gods · Post by **The Gods** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:21 pm

Rick Scarf wrote:You know what really is missing in terms of T2A accuracy? Paying $10/mo

skill gain is faster than it was on catskills...took weeks and weeks to gm swords 1 hr a night during power hour at bone knight wall...also u couldnt gm off a zombie or skeleton like u can here...had to actually fight harder stuff like bone knights...u can gm swords in 6 hrs off an npc...smith took an unbelievable amount of time as well...months and months

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:46 pm

The Gods wrote:
Rick Scarf wrote:You know what really is missing in terms of T2A accuracy? Paying $10/mo
skill gain is faster than it was on catskills...took weeks and weeks to gm swords 1 hr a night during power hour at bone knight wall...also u couldnt gm off a zombie or skeleton like u can here...had to actually fight harder stuff like bone knights...u can gm swords in 6 hrs off an npc...smith took an unbelievable amount of time as well...months and months

There was no power hour in T2A

morgan1109 · Post by **morgan1109** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:54 pm

There's really two issues to address.

issue 1 : This game is extremely hard on new players. If you make a mage you can buy 3 of each reg plus the six you start with to make your way in the world with 6 level one spells I might add. You better hope you get a kill your first time out or it's over. A fighter can afford a sword (no armor) to start their life. one mistake and you are hosed. Change the starting pot from 100 to 5,000 and they can screw up a few times and outfit themselves better. That's basically what I do with Djimon. I am at the Brit bank a couple times a week giving out weapons and armor to new folks. Why? So they get another chance to screw up. It takes 7 days to remake a character, so it's not like somebody can game the system very well for the cash.

Issue 2: gold and silver. The age of this shard and with no true gold sink outside of reagents means there is gold galore. We need a way to pull the gold out. And no buying silver to get a rare does not get gold out of the system, it shuffles the gold between characters. Yes Silver leaves the system, but the gold stays. This game needs a good gold sink. Maybe a lottery or raffle that you enter and winner gets something worthwhile enough to make it worth playing. Yes you'll have a couple new items entering the system, but you'll hopefully have a lot of gold leaving the system. We've run raffles at the Stop and Shop with great success in the past, but we keep the gold

. You run a server wide raffle or lottery you'd probably be surprised how much gold leaves the system. Better yet we have a cool mechanic the other don't have which should help drive interest in the shard itself.

Yes I realize the two issues are contradictory. One puts more gold in the system and then I ask to take gold out of the system. The crucial difference here is that the gold is going into the hands of new people, and leaving the hands of the vets. That helps balance the overall system.

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:05 pm

Player-run charity is a perfectly good fix to issue 1, in my view. Adversity is what makes people work together in this game.

As for 2, inflation was a problem in UO. Particularly highlighted by duping on OSI (and by Telamon on this shard). Gold sinks are a good idea.

morgan1109 · Post by **morgan1109** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:35 pm

I agree with you but player run charity means players need to know who the new people are. We still haven't set up the companion system just talked about it. That stuff moves slow...

The benefit of putting more coin in their pocket is precisely because it doesn't take any advance knowledge, or intervention of any kind. It's a very easy code change, so the implementation is really easy compared to complex concepts like the companion system.

It's not ideal, but we can't force people to use IRC or this forum. That means player intervention (charity) will always be limited. It's simple. it's easy. it benefits all new players equally. The only downside is the dude creating 40 accounts with 5 players each to make a cool million. The GM's are supposed to be looking at accounts originated per ISP address to block this type of abuse for other reasons, so this type of activity is already monitored (and hopefully limited). That mostly eliminates the only real downside.

Post by **Mens Rea** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:56 pm

I think you're on the right track, I just think there may be better implementation than a free lunch for all newcomers.

Next thing you know Syrian migrants will be joining UOSA en masse.

UO Second Age

"If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

"If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."

Re: "If T2A Accuracy policies were softened, I would..."