Ghosting, Free-use, and Curing DP: DERRICK ANSWERS!

[Ooompa Loompa]

As far as the ghosting, it's really the same answer unfortunately. Many heads have been beat against the wall on this, but in the end it's an accurate mechanic. But additionally, if we did decide to combat this outside of the realm of accuracy, I don't see how this can be changed without effecting normal game mechanics and play in ways completely unrelated to this issue.

I really don't see how combating ghosting is an accuracy issue. The problem itself is already CAUSED by an inaccuracy, that every player has access to 15 characters rather than 5 with absolutely NO barrier. Players could do so on OSI servers yes, but at an actual cost which reduced the number of available characters to any given group (an individual might get multiple accounts, but rarely an entire guild etc). Now I'm not suggesting requiring cash for multiple accounts, but considering the problem is due to this inconsistency already you would think a balance to it is not an unreasonable suggestion.

Why not consider something like a case where say upon becoming a ghost a timer begins counting. If the character has not left said dungeon within 1 hour real-time (or SOME sort of time-frame) then it is moved to Britain, or failing that at least the entrance of the dungeon to require a LITTLE bit of effort. If someone were actually unable to find there way out, it'd be a slight leg up and it'd reduce the ease with which ghosts are used.

As for DP, i was fairly sure that when poison levels were implemented in crafting that the associated cure levels were implemented at the same time. Sadly, I have no record that would back that up so i suppose that issue is neither here nor there, but i certainly do not remember an expansion-spanning gap where cure potion levels had no purpose. Free-Use wise I'm too new still to even have an opinion.

Just wanted to put that point out there. All players having a no-barrier access to 15 characters is not era-accurate.

I had one account, and my brother had 2 accounts during this time frame, giving us net acess to 3 accounts. Many of the hardcore UOers during this timeframe had 2 sometimes 3 accounts, so it is era accurate. In all reality this has nothing to do with how many chars you have, it is a multi clienting issue, but that argument has already been made, and Derrick has said he will not stop multi clienting, so I will leave it at that.

[Sandro]

The only reason Ghosting is such an issue to the scale that it is here is simply that many people were unwilling to pay an additional $20 / $40 a month to have access to more than 1 account at a time.

So, in all fairness it is/was technically available to "ghost" during OSI T2A, you just had to literally "pay" todo so.

Here the above stated does not apply, so such techniques are very common. Although in turn I believe the same could be done by PvM players to see if a location they are wanting to farm in is currently being ghosted. It really isn't that hard to place a ghost at a choke-point or the "usual" entrance to watch for any intruders..

[Adambomb]

I had one account, and my brother had 2 accounts during this time frame, giving us net acess to 3 accounts

yes, as said many individuals had multiple accounts but it wasn't something guaranteed to each and every player. just having the small barrier there kept most people from having that many character slots available. I'm not saying anything against multiclienting at all. i'm saying that specifically balancing the ghosting problem that results from an inaccurate number of character slots being available overall is not at odds with the era accuracy.

[Panthor the Hated]

This shard is about era accurate game mechanics, not about era accurate limitations on access to the game.

[Adambomb]

Considering the high availability of character slots and concurrent online alts significantly changes the game mechanics, I fail to see the difference.

[MustardCat]

Deciding how many accounts are allowed and how many you can have logged in at once is a policy decision by staff. Auto teleporting ghosts from dungeons is an inaccurate gameplay mechanic change, and will never be implemented.

[Adambomb]

Considering the massive numbers of ghost directly relate to the inaccurate number of character slots and inaccurate number of concurrent chars on per player, whether you call it server policy or login mechanics it still is a direct impact on the gameplay mechanics. Since this is already inaccurate, coding in a balance to it wouldn't change the fact. Altering how ghosts are handled within dungeons specifically will have very little other impact on the gameplay other than in the case of ghost scouting.

How else would that affect the gameplay in any way that would detract from the T2Aness of the shard? I certainly can't think of any examples, it's not like it takes long to run out of a dungeon. If given a timer before being moved (like the hour or so i was suggesting) that gives ample time to still be res'd if it's possible for a guildmate or someone else to res you. I fail to see how this would conflict with the T2A accuracy in the end. Plus, if one was simply moved to the dungeon entry point or some such this would just mean ghost scouting would at least cost a minor time investment instead of simply being BLOOD ELE CAMERA TURN ON *login*.

Yes, I know having ghost scouts was possible during the era, but not to the degree that it is used here is my point. The sheer number of them posted DOES have a negative impact on the T2a feel, at least insofar as it relates to what i remember of chesa, baja, and napa valley. If anyone had any ghosts it was MAYBE one at hyth balrons, one at destard, and one at titans, not this "every single dungeon and common area from cove harpies to deceit ll to hedge maze etc etc" being covered for instant response during every prime time. I'm not looking forward to having to play this as virtual-mall-security staring at afk ghost screens whenever theres 4+ of my guildies on.

[MustardCat]

Write as many posts as you want trying to rationalize how putting in a known inaccurate mechanic somehow doesn't actually make the shard less accurate. But know this: It's never going to happen. Sorry, this just isn't one of those shards.

From the main page, bolding mine:

Since inception, the goal, vision and rationale of even creating this shard has been very simple but unique:

* We aim to replicate the T2A era as best we can and within technical limitations as a whole.
* We do not intend to ever change any aspect of normal gameplay to particularly favor any playstyle or to protect or further expose any players to the in-game risk that was a large part of this era.
* We will especially not pull aspects of other eras into this one, even with an overwhelming demand of players.

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, nor do we believe is achievable across all playstyles. Diversity of players and playstyles is a necessity of a healthy shard. Every type of play depends on another, and this is why UO is absolutely the greatest MMORPG ever crafted.

[Adambomb]

heh act as smug as you want, but you are blatantly ignoring the point that the issue i'm mentioning only exists due to an existing inaccuracy. I wouldn't expect the guaranteed 3 accounts per player to change so i was suggesting a balance for one of the specific differences in the game mechanics it causes instead.

And again, yes I know people had multiple accounts in t2a but it was significantly less than _every single player_ having multiple accounts. Multiple accounts isn't the same thing as emulating a larger server population as there's only a certain number of slots any given person would really be considering 'needed' for play. This means larger numbers of actual players with less accounts distributed among them would value their slots much higher as needed for what they WANT to do individually and would be less liable to give them up for ghosts as opposed to having say, 2-3 slots x 3 accounts dedicated to ghosting with 2-3 slots x 3 remaining for actual play purposes.

[platypus]

I think the best way to deal with this is make ghosts unable to tab into peace mode when in dungeons. Can't really think of any loopholes around this, or any problems that it could cause a legitimate player that dies in a dungeon. The perma-combat-tab would turn off as soon as they walk outside of a dungeon, into a gate to town, etc. Not sure if this is possible, but its alot better of some of the other solutions posted here.

[Adambomb]

I hadn't thought of that one platy, that's actually a much better idea.

[Hemperor]

Ghosting will never be dealt with. Get used to people exploiting the era (not just ghosting) for their own personal gain which takes away largely from the overall gameplay.

One thing I personally don't like about this shard is the unwillingness to recreate the era experience. This wouldn't be needed at all really if we were limited to one account, but we aren't.

It really does all relate here. Crafters are simply people that press "play", reds have 5 blues etc.

[Adambomb]

Ghosting will never be dealt with. Get used to people exploiting the era (not just ghosting) for their own personal gain which takes away largely from the overall gameplay.

One thing I personally don't like about this shard is the unwillingness to recreate the era experience. This wouldn't be needed at all really if we were limited to one account, but we aren't.

Damnit hemperor never make me agree with you again. That just ain't right.