UO Second Age

Biohazard wrote:

Caranthir wrote:

Problem is, it appears that I the entire burden of risk will be carried by me and me only doing PvM.

So statsloss is not a burden of risk? I think it's a much bigger burden than someone with 40 each and 1k gold in their pack carries.

Statloss is very easily managed though. 1) you dont have to res until your 8 hours are up. 2) half the pk's aren't in statloss 3) half of that half of pk's are blue.

its not like they come in to pk you when you have 1k either. they let you sit and stew and build up that loot so when they hit you its for a large sum.

just throwing some points out there. I will play here either way.

1) Most pks will have more than 8 hours to wait when they kick the bucket, I'd have roughly 400h if I wanted to wait it out and I am one of the smaller fish in the pond.

2) So they will PK one person every day cause more would give them statsloss? Sounds survivable.

3) Same as for reds not in statsloss, even though I do agree we need pingpong.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:This:

Caranthir wrote:Doesn't change the fact that implementing some random 'fix' for people using ghosts to scout locations is not era accurate. Whether people did or did not have multiple accounts in that era really isn't relevant.

What is relevant is the the current practice is harmful to the shard and out of control; thus needs to be addressed.

So, weather or not ghosting was possible or practiced in 1999 is not relevant. The fact is that the practice is out of control on UOSA and a elegant response is warranted.

I think most of us agree that:

Condition 1: Having a ghost in a dungeon is not the problem.

Condition 2: Having a ghost planted for the specific purpose to conduct risk-free reconnaissance is wrong and an abuse of the multiple account policy of UOSA

It is this practice, and only this practice, that people would like controlled.

Some of the suggested responses are no different than when OSI made moongates a guard zone.

Simply move parked ghosts to just inside of the given dungeon's entrance.

That way condition one is still viable but it eliminates condition two.

Return the risk back to PKing. If you want to recon the area, just park a hidden character there and take the risk of getting killed. It should really be a mimum issue. Hell, until the counter decays, you can keep your ghost there and then just walk it back from the entrance to your spot... and repeat the process.

But simplying just using one of 15 character spots for hours of risk-free recon is simply wrong and out of control here.

Kraarug wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:This:

Caranthir wrote:Doesn't change the fact that implementing some random 'fix' for people using ghosts to scout locations is not era accurate. Whether people did or did not have multiple accounts in that era really isn't relevant.

What is relevant is the the current practice is harmful to the shard and out of control; thus needs to be addressed.

So, weather or not ghosting was possible or practiced in 1999 is not relevant. The fact is that the practice is out of control on UOSA and a elegant response is warranted.

I think most of us agree that:

Condition 1: Having a ghost in a dungeon is not the problem.

Condition 2: Having a ghost planted for the specific purpose to conduct risk-free reconnaissance is wrong and an abuse of the multiple account policy of UOSA

It is this practice, and only this practice, that people would like controlled.

Some of the suggested responses are no different than when OSI made moongates a guard zone.

Simply move parked ghosts to just inside of the given dungeon's entrance.

That way condition one is still viable but it eliminates condition two.

Return the risk back to PKing. If you want to recon the area, just park a hidden character there and take the risk of getting killed. It should really be a mimum issue. Hell, until the counter decays, you can keep your ghost there and then just walk it back from the entrance to your spot... and repeat the process.

But simplying just using one of 15 character spots for hours of risk-free recon is simply wrong and out of control here.

Completely agree.

The people trying to put this off to the side by saying this is a non issue are probably some of the guilty ones. Topics like this don't reach 9 pages for nothing.

It also isn't only blood eles and LL that have ghosts, even the smaller farming spots you wouldn't think of are being ghosted.

Let's also not kid ourselves, they aren't sacrificing one of their 15 characters, I'm willing to bet they have numerous accounts solely for the purpose of ghosting.

Hemperor wrote:What is relevant is the the current practice is harmful to the shard and out of control; thus needs to be addressed.

Fail; it is not for us to decide what is harmful. We must accept the era as a whole.

Front Page wrote:We believe that "proper" gameplay can only be achieved by taking the era as a whole and accept it for what it was. Tampering with the era in hope of achieving balance is not something that we will do.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:

Hemperor wrote:What is relevant is the the current practice is harmful to the shard and out of control; thus needs to be addressed.

Fail; it is not for us to decide what is harmful. We must accept the era as a whole.

Front Page wrote:We believe that "proper" gameplay can only be achieved by taking the era as a whole and accept it for what it was. Tampering with the era in hope of achieving balance is not something that we will do.

Fail is not reading the thread and understanding whats going on.

You assume much.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:You assume much.

You just said the same thing that's been said about 30 times in this thread. We get that its era accurate. We are not discussing whether it is era accurate.

What is not era accurate is there is no way to curb multi-accounts (i.e. money)

If we are doing your argument.. let's accept the era as a whole and charge each person $10 for an account. Does that fit era accuracy for you? (and put people on 56k, and not allow razor, etc.)

Biohazard wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:You assume much.

You just said the same thing that's been said about 30 times in this thread. We get that its era accurate. We are not discussing whether it is era accurate.

What is not era accurate is there is no way to curb multi-accounts (i.e. money)

If we are doing your argument.. let's accept the era as a whole and charge each person $10 for an account. Does that fit era accuracy for you? (and put people on 56k, and not allow razor, etc.)

Zomg. The 56k thing is so not true and not era accurate at all.

My friend had a T1 and his cousin's uncle's niece's nephew's uncle had fiber optics (yes, even in 1999). My grandpa's grandon's mother's son had a T3!! So obviously EVERYBODY was using something better than 56k.

zzyzx wrote:Zomg. The 56k thing is so not true and not era accurate at all.

My friend had a T1 and his cousin's uncle's niece's nephew's uncle had fiber optics (yes, even in 1999). My grandpa's grandon's mother's son had a T3!! So obviously EVERYBODY was using something better than 56k.

*Takes a seat like the son that he is*

Good point... I have been officially schooled 1v1 no pots OR wands.. no ghosting required.

zzyzx wrote:

Biohazard wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:You assume much.

You just said the same thing that's been said about 30 times in this thread. We get that its era accurate. We are not discussing whether it is era accurate.

What is not era accurate is there is no way to curb multi-accounts (i.e. money)

If we are doing your argument.. let's accept the era as a whole and charge each person $10 for an account. Does that fit era accuracy for you? (and put people on 56k, and not allow razor, etc.)

Zomg. The 56k thing is so not true and not era accurate at all.

My friend had a T1 and his cousin's uncle's niece's nephew's uncle had fiber optics (yes, even in 1999). My grandpa's grandon's mother's son had a T3!! So obviously EVERYBODY was using something better than 56k.

Here's the truth hijo



Source: http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0311/[/quote]

Medwin Lucrii wrote:

Hemperor wrote:What is relevant is the the current practice is harmful to the shard and out of control; thus needs to be addressed.

Fail; it is not for us to decide what is harmful. We must accept the era as a whole.

Front Page wrote:We believe that "proper" gameplay can only be achieved by taking the era as a whole and accept it for what it was. Tampering with the era in hope of achieving balance is not something that we will do.

There's your answer, front page from the horse's mouth.

It was era accurate for reds whether in ghost or alive to be denied the privilege to instalog from any house...is that the case here?

archaicsubrosa77 wrote:It was era accurate for reds whether in ghost or alive to be denied the privilege to instalog from any house...is that the case here?

Link?

Give me a few I read it yesterday...let me go back

If the issue is multiple accounts being free then perhaps that should be the issue rather than ghosting. If we make extra accounts donation based it won't stop ghosting as most of the people who ghost will just pay for more accounts. Limiting people to one account would not be accurate to OSI and is therefore not really an option.

Using ghosts for risk free reconnaissance was part of the game back in the day and should be part of it now. I honestly don't quite understand why people think its such a big problem here. I farm in all the major hotspots at varying times of the day and have never had a problem with being ghosted. Also you have to be aware that ghosts or not if you go farming at the Lich Lords or Shame Bloods you are very likely to have to escape or engage in pvp.