UO Second Age

Caranthir wrote:Yeah the instant res existed, but that was way early in UO times. Can we have the PK count fix first and then discuss auto res? Derrick?

You cant have it both ways cap.

son wrote:You cant have it both ways cap.

Uhm, the thing wasn't AUTO-res it was a possible INSTA-res. The choice was to remain either a ghost or res, and that choice existed for everyone not just murderers.

The original topic was about the fact that murder counts should remain the same after resurrection due to era accuracy.

Ultimately, that's two different topics.

Caranthir wrote:

son wrote:You cant have it both ways cap.

Uhm, the thing wasn't AUTO-res it was a possible INSTA-res. The choice was to remain either a ghost or res, and that choice existed for everyone not just murderers.

The original topic was about the fact that murder counts should remain the same after resurrection due to era accuracy.

Ultimately, that's two different topics.

felix is arguing that he should be allowed to take 10% stat loss if murder counts are going to remain the same after ressurrecting. technically they do have some bearing on each other

but the difference is that we know for sure that counts didn't change, while we currently have no proof that taking 10% stat loss as a deep stat murderer was ever possible.

Caranthir wrote:

son wrote:You cant have it both ways cap.

Uhm, the thing wasn't AUTO-res it was a possible INSTA-res. The choice was to remain either a ghost or res, and that choice existed for everyone not just murderers.

The original topic was about the fact that murder counts should remain the same after resurrection due to era accuracy.

Ultimately, that's two different topics.

Ye but you trying to nerf a certain aspect of pker's realm without acknowledging another era accurate feature that benefits them. Bias much?

nightshark wrote:

Caranthir wrote:

son wrote:You cant have it both ways cap.

Uhm, the thing wasn't AUTO-res it was a possible INSTA-res. The choice was to remain either a ghost or res, and that choice existed for everyone not just murderers.

The original topic was about the fact that murder counts should remain the same after resurrection due to era accuracy.

Ultimately, that's two different topics.

felix is arguing that he should be allowed to take 10% stat loss if murder counts are going to remain the same after ressurrecting. technically they do have some bearing on each other

but the difference is that we know for sure that counts didn't change, while we currently have no proof that taking 10% stat loss as a deep stat murderer was ever possible.

Uncle Faust will find this

Its pretty obvious that both the stat-loss and the instant res would necessarily need to stack. The reason? If they didn't, the maximum stat-loss that anyone would have ever taken would have been only 10%, which is perhaps 6 or 7 short term counts at best. The lack of any mention for this rather wide and obvious loophole suggests that it never existed in the first place, much like the stratics article says.

Kaivan wrote:Its pretty obvious that both the stat-loss and the instant res would necessarily need to stack. The reason? If they didn't, the maximum stat-loss that anyone would have ever taken would have been only 10%, which is perhaps 6 or 7 short term counts at best. The lack of any mention for this rather wide and obvious loophole suggests that it never existed in the first place, much like the stratics article says.

Except it was not widely known, and lets not forget the risk of only taking 10% loss is not guaranteed (you could die again right after).

Usually if someone's recollection is incorrect, it's because they remember something from UO:R. In this case though, we know insta-ressing wasn't in UO:R, it was specifically taken out then. So how else could son remember doing this?

Also, side note: look at the posts in the Google groups archive and on Stratics. There just wasn't a lot of murderers in those places. So it stands to reason that a not-widely-known trick that murderers used would not be mentioned there.

Lastly... I think Derrick disabled the insta-res feature here because of players hitting it accidentally, or new players selecting it when they were confused about what it did.

Also, for what it's worth, I always remembered stat loss as anecdotally being 10% (I don't believe I had a red back then to know for sure what it was). I was surprised when I got here and learned it was 20%. So one possible explanation for people talking about 10% loss is the insta-res trick, if it existed.

son wrote:

Kaivan wrote:Its pretty obvious that both the stat-loss and the instant res would necessarily need to stack. The reason? If they didn't, the maximum stat-loss that anyone would have ever taken would have been only 10%, which is perhaps 6 or 7 short term counts at best. The lack of any mention for this rather wide and obvious loophole suggests that it never existed in the first place, much like the stratics article says.

Except it was not widely known, and lets not forget the risk of only taking 10% loss is not guaranteed (you could die again right after).

A player had the same risk of dying again if they ressed through normal means and took stat loss. The only difference is that instant ressing with a 10% stat loss would circumvent the severity of normal stat loss beyond 6 or 7 counts, and would provide them a means of ressing instantly. This is essentially counter-productive to the whole point of the system, and takes nearly no effort to circumvent.

Mikel123 wrote:Also, for what it's worth, I always remembered stat loss as anecdotally being 10% (I don't believe I had a red back then to know for sure what it was). I was surprised when I got here and learned it was 20%. So one possible explanation for people talking about 10% loss is the insta-res trick, if it existed.

Before the re-introduction of stat-loss, under the old notoriety system, stat-loss was an immediate 10% loss upon death. Those references could easily point to that as well.

Mikel123 wrote:Usually if someone's recollection is incorrect, it's because they remember something from UO:R. In this case though, we know insta-ressing wasn't in UO:R, it was specifically taken out then. So how else could son remember doing this?

If you start basing stuff from people's memory, where do you draw the line? Not that I disbelieve son or think he has any reason to lie, it would just be a hard line to draw.

Besides, Faust already said insta res in the demo, so it's actually test-able.

Interesting Kaivan, that definitely could explain it as well.

I'm not sure quite how testable it is on the demo. There may be the insta-res option, yes, but there are no other players So good luck building up murder counts

Kaivan wrote:

son wrote:

Kaivan wrote:Its pretty obvious that both the stat-loss and the instant res would necessarily need to stack. The reason? If they didn't, the maximum stat-loss that anyone would have ever taken would have been only 10%, which is perhaps 6 or 7 short term counts at best. The lack of any mention for this rather wide and obvious loophole suggests that it never existed in the first place, much like the stratics article says.

Except it was not widely known, and lets not forget the risk of only taking 10% loss is not guaranteed (you could die again right after).

A player had the same risk of dying again if they ressed through normal means and took stat loss. The only difference is that instant ressing with a 10% stat loss would circumvent the severity of normal stat loss beyond 6 or 7 counts, and would provide them a means of ressing instantly. This is essentially counter-productive to the whole point of the system, and takes nearly no effort to circumvent.

Mikel123 wrote:Also, for what it's worth, I always remembered stat loss as anecdotally being 10% (I don't believe I had a red back then to know for sure what it was). I was surprised when I got here and learned it was 20%. So one possible explanation for people talking about 10% loss is the insta-res trick, if it existed.

Before the re-introduction of stat-loss, under the old notoriety system, stat-loss was an immediate 10% loss upon death. Those references could easily point to that as well.

Yea well I doubt it was something OSI intended.

Mikel123 wrote:Interesting Kaivan, that definitely could explain it as well.

I'm not sure quite how testable it is on the demo. There may be the insta-res option, yes, but there are no other players So good luck building up murder counts

Batlin can alter or modify any variable at start up of the demo.

He has already tested murder counts in the past for something else involving it.

He could even create a [set murders <insert amount> command to ease the testing for something like this.

Faust wrote:

Mikel123 wrote:Interesting Kaivan, that definitely could explain it as well.

I'm not sure quite how testable it is on the demo. There may be the insta-res option, yes, but there are no other players So good luck building up murder counts

Batlin can alter or modify any variable at start up of the demo.

He has already tested murder counts in the past for something else involving it.

He could even create a [set murders <insert amount> command to ease the testing for something like this.

Get er done plz