Swing on the run (dexing)

[Malaikat]

I took a class on Aristotelian logic in college, and, from my limited amount of exposure, I dare say that is an atrocity, Mens.

[Ronk]

Kaiven, Like i said, my mistake. I chose the wrong specific meaning of the words onthe main page and assumed something was true that is in fact not true. Thus my arguments of mimicing the external forces is a moot point.

Mens. I beleive that is partially inaccurate. Automated events were implemented and left in for player count as far as i remember. It was determined that events were good for keepig players busy but hosting each event was too time consuming for the staff. Assuming my memeory is true (im on an iphone and lookin it up would be difficult) then its a prime example.

[Ronk]

Btw. Is anyone on a slow 56k modem? Id love to get a 56k mage and 56k dexxer to fight it out and see how much connection actually plays in. Ultimately, the connection timing thing is merely a guess as to how t2a couda lacked hit on the run and yet everyone (dexxers) remembers chasig down people and hittin on the run.

Its a pity youtube wasnt around back then. Dated in game footage woulda been awesome.

[Mens Rea]

I took a class on Aristotelian logic in college, and, from my limited amount of exposure, I dare say that is an atrocity, Mens.

Translation from undergraduate babble into English: "You're wrong, and it is proveable by way of the knowledge I obtained in the class I took at some stage, but I haven't retained enough knowledge from this class to actually prove that you are wrong."

So essentially you're just saying I'm wrong without engaging with the points I made and the reasoning I gave. You can't have done very well in your "class on Aristotelian logic in college". Or did you just read over the course description and flunk out?

[Malaikat]

I didn't say it was necessarily wrong...just sloppy and inaccurate in a formalistic sense. In other words, that wasn't a formal argument, but I wasn't trying to comment on its soundness.

[Kaivan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We've gotten off topic. This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy since I think Mens and Rose have made compelling cases that the said mini-patch note is not at all decisive on what preceded it. Why is this change anything but arbitrary considering the detriment it has been to server balance? (The extension to this question is, if it's arbitrary, why not change it back?)

To elaborate a bit further, the reason I pinned the statement the way that I did is that it felt (and I could be wrong here) that it was worded in such a way as to imply that UOSA was not about attempting to emulate the T2A era from a mechanical standpoint. Extending from this is the implication that our incorrect mechanic (or perceived to be incorrect mechanic) was in place because we weren't actually attempting to emulate the era - which is a focus not on the argument, but on attributes & assertions of the server itself.

Let me break it down for you boys.

There are a time tested set of arguments that are inherently invalid on this forum. I say inherently invalid because they do not engage with the stated goal of the shard, and that is to be an accurate reflection of the T2A era - with certain qualifications:

1 - "The change I am suggesting will bring people to the shard."
2 - "The change I am suggesting is more fun."
3 - "The change I am suggesting is just as inaccurate/more accurate than another aspect of the shard which is inaccurate."
4 - "The change I am suggesting is more balanced."
5 - "The change I suggest is accurate because it is my recollection." (Although, admittedly, this has worked for me before a few times long in the past - and in fact one of my recollections which was relied on was completely wrong.)
6 - "This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy..." - tanmits (above)

I concede that there are no defined rules as to all the aforementioned "qualifications" to accuracy and why they are included. We see it over and over again on these forums - runebooks, events, etc. The reality is that the goal is of course accuracy, so if you are concerned about accuracy then there is no point arguing that a certain threshold of accuracy has been overstepped therefore this should justify further inaccuracy. It just takes the shard *futher* away from the shard's intended goal so the argument falls flat - it's time to give it up.

The comments made by Rose and I on this topic give a good example of how you can achieve your suggested changes on this shard. I have personally achieved many, many changes to this shard - sometimes having to rely on creative arguments to at least prove the matter beyond what the counter-argument suggests. There are grey areas. This topic is not a closed subject - that is clear. There are tonnes of resources out there which are not visited/revisted for every single change/subject which is brought up on the shard. Nobody had ever raised the issue that the mini-patch may have been remedial due to it's timing.

To conclude, I give my prescribed format for valid arguments in the context of this shard, these forums, and the subjects on which we discuss:

I suggest change xxxx, it is accurate because yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) and because of yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) the current system should be changed to xxxx.

It's really very simple:

xxxx = (yyyy ≠ (1,2,3,4,5,6))

And as an extra for experts:

xxxx - yyyy ≠ 1,2,3,4,5,6

I tend to agree with the first 5 points as a litmus test for most suggestions, however point 6 is an issue. Using the current topic as an example, I think we can all agree that just because we don't have a lot of information on the issue doesn't mean that movement restrictions (or the lack thereof) aren't actually a mechanic. Since that's the case, it stands to reason that the change should indeed be framed in era accuracy, and the accurate implementation should be the goal of the server.

[Ronk]

I havent heard from any hardcore dexxers of the era speak to remembering any system where people had to stop. In fact, most people seem to remember being able to run people down during the t2a era. Obviosuly memories are not proof. My fear is by the time we find hard proof, it will be too late.

I may spend some time tonight looking but if the move onthe run mini patch was a quick fix to restore something that broke in the uo:r patch, youll never find a patch that says it was broken. The best hope is finding an old forum (that is still around) where in someone complains it got broke.

[Roser]

When asked about where on the net to look for era accuracy's, Kaivan mentioned these... "the demo, the patch notes, newsgroups, stratics, and house of commons chats"

If anyone has any other idea's of where to look, please post... or even make a new (possibly stickied) thread about it.

I would like to look, but I don't wanna go digging though a pile of info someone's already been though 100 times before.

Question: 56k modem + movement restriction = impossible dexing in the t2a era. Yes? No?


P.S. I'm working on rigging an organic entheogen based time machine directly to the memory cortex of my fleshy brain which, in theory, should allow my consciousness to freely navigate and fully experience any and all vibratory recordings that my memory has stored since inception.

This should allow for "safe time travel" as I will only be re-experiencing my own memories, and thus will be powerless to alter anything of the past by way of interaction.

Fist stop scheduled: Parents basement October 31 1999, 8:13pm GMT - The year I discarded Halloween candy for something greater.... UO.

[Malaikat]

Question: 56k modem + movement restriction = impossible dexing in the t2a era. Yes? No?

All things equal, it makes sense that latency would favor a dexer. Archers would have been the most blessed, which is pretty in line with my recollections.

Maybe they should purposefully drop every other packet (or 2 or 3) on the server side. You know, to really recreate that t2a experience for everyone.

[Ronk]

Maybe they should purposefully drop every other packet (or 2 or 3) on the server side. You know, to really recreate that t2a experience for everyone.

thats what i suggested (but only after its verified that it makes a difference). But this is what kai said was external forces and not what is intended to be mimiced by this shard. So its unlikely to happen ^_^

[iamreallysquall]

you realize that people had cable modems by our target soft date correct?

[tanmits]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We've gotten off topic. This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy since I think Mens and Rose have made compelling cases that the said mini-patch note is not at all decisive on what preceded it. Why is this change anything but arbitrary considering the detriment it has been to server balance? (The extension to this question is, if it's arbitrary, why not change it back?)

To elaborate a bit further, the reason I pinned the statement the way that I did is that it felt (and I could be wrong here) that it was worded in such a way as to imply that UOSA was not about attempting to emulate the T2A era from a mechanical standpoint. Extending from this is the implication that our incorrect mechanic (or perceived to be incorrect mechanic) was in place because we weren't actually attempting to emulate the era - which is a focus not on the argument, but on attributes & assertions of the server itself.

Let me break it down for you boys.

There are a time tested set of arguments that are inherently invalid on this forum. I say inherently invalid because they do not engage with the stated goal of the shard, and that is to be an accurate reflection of the T2A era - with certain qualifications:

1 - "The change I am suggesting will bring people to the shard."
2 - "The change I am suggesting is more fun."
3 - "The change I am suggesting is just as inaccurate/more accurate than another aspect of the shard which is inaccurate."
4 - "The change I am suggesting is more balanced."
5 - "The change I suggest is accurate because it is my recollection." (Although, admittedly, this has worked for me before a few times long in the past - and in fact one of my recollections which was relied on was completely wrong.)
6 - "This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy..." - tanmits (above)

I concede that there are no defined rules as to all the aforementioned "qualifications" to accuracy and why they are included. We see it over and over again on these forums - runebooks, events, etc. The reality is that the goal is of course accuracy, so if you are concerned about accuracy then there is no point arguing that a certain threshold of accuracy has been overstepped therefore this should justify further inaccuracy. It just takes the shard *futher* away from the shard's intended goal so the argument falls flat - it's time to give it up.

The comments made by Rose and I on this topic give a good example of how you can achieve your suggested changes on this shard. I have personally achieved many, many changes to this shard - sometimes having to rely on creative arguments to at least prove the matter beyond what the counter-argument suggests. There are grey areas. This topic is not a closed subject - that is clear. There are tonnes of resources out there which are not visited/revisted for every single change/subject which is brought up on the shard. Nobody had ever raised the issue that the mini-patch may have been remedial due to it's timing.

To conclude, I give my prescribed format for valid arguments in the context of this shard, these forums, and the subjects on which we discuss:

I suggest change xxxx, it is accurate because yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) and because of yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) the current system should be changed to xxxx.

It's really very simple:

xxxx = (yyyy ≠ (1,2,3,4,5,6))

And as an extra for experts:

xxxx - yyyy ≠ 1,2,3,4,5,6

I tend to agree with the first 5 points as a litmus test for most suggestions, however point 6 is an issue. Using the current topic as an example, I think we can all agree that just because we don't have a lot of information on the issue doesn't mean that movement restrictions (or the lack thereof) aren't actually a mechanic. Since that's the case, it stands to reason that the change should indeed be framed in era accuracy, and the accurate implementation should be the goal of the server.

Despite being misquoted twice, I do care about era accuracy...

I merely said we shouldn't frame this particular issue as era accuracy (addendum: yet) because it is entirely unclear whether SOTR was era accurate. Furthermore, that it was removed because "we don't have a lot of information on the issue" seems strangely arbitrary. Do you want us to prove that dexers didn't have to stop to swing? If so, we may be here a while since we have to prove a negative about a mechanic that people may not have been entirely aware of due to latency issues or because of how poorly many of the era's mechanics were known at the time.

In the meantime, the field has been almost completely emptied of dexers based entirely on a mini-patch note after a massive mechanics patch. My point is, why make such drastic balance changes based on such flimsy evidence?

[Roser]

I'm about to call SunSword on his cell phone and demand answers... Anyone got his number?

[Pac]

you realize that people had cable modems by our target soft date correct?

Yes, but some people still used 56k. Therefore, in their reality, everyone used 56k.

I played T2A on a 200MHz Pentium II with 16MB of RAM, so for era accuracy's sake the server should be handicapped to emulate these specifications.

[Ronk]

you realize that people had cable modems by our target soft date correct?

Yes, but some people still used 56k. Therefore, in their reality, everyone used 56k.

I played T2A on a 200MHz Pentium II with 16MB of RAM, so for era accuracy's sake the server should be handicapped to emulate these specifications.

This is way off topic but I am speaking of the majority of people. Yes, a few elite people had cable modems and they rocked the field over those who didn't.

[img]http://www.isp-planet.com/img/research/ ... 01.gif[img]

I didn't spend a lot of time looking for graphs but they are out there. This one is 2001, which is a little too new for the time frame.

The overall point, which got diluted a bit, was that most people who played dexers do not remember being so gimp or having to stop to recharge to swing. Connection speed was one possible reason, though untested. Clearly, something is not accurate right now...whether that is internal or external is one of the things being debated.


To explain things in a very poor comparison. If you go play oregon trail (the original) the music is going to go super fast and everything is going to happen way to fast to play. This is because the technology it was built on has changed (and poor programming practices, but thats moot). When you try to recreate an old game/system, its silly not to take the external factors into account. Else you may end up with oregon trail, technically, but it is unplayable.