stat loss

[Faust]

The only problem I see with our murder and stat loss system in an accuracy stand point is the stat loss penalty and the perma red status. The penalty for stat loss should be 9-20% ranging from 5-20 murders, and perma red doesn't exist.

[alatar]

So are we really going to up the stat-loss to 20% at 20+ kills..? That's a little rediculous..

[Mirage]

So are we really going to up the stat-loss to 20% at 20+ kills..? That's a little rediculous..

20% at 100 kills isn't riduclous?

[alatar]

no.. it's permanent loss.. on a semi-osi gain rate server..

[malice-tg]

The current system is fine.

i dont think we should even have long terms personally i like that non long term part of the era more. noto pks blue pks were fun.

the stat loss is plenty. some people choose to pvp before they are 7xgm... so thats why it may seem like peeps are fighting while you are macroing to perfection.

[Mirage]

It's not era accurate.

[malice-tg]

It's not era accurate.

i disagree

[Faust]

Regardless of the matter it isn't era accurate malice. This doesn't mean it will be changed or anything on those lines. I'm just stating the truth and how it worked back then. It was 9-20% ranging from 5-20 murders, not a 100 murders max that comes out to 20%.

[platy]

Regardless of the matter it isn't era accurate malice. This doesn't mean it will be changed or anything on those lines. I'm just stating the truth and how it worked back then. It was 9-20% ranging from 5-20 murders, not a 100 murders max that comes out to 20%.

i'm with u faust
our system is better for a freeshard and PVP imho

[BloodyBandage]

It's not era accurate.

i disagree

You mine as well disagree that the sky is blue too because it's proven in the patch notes.

our system is better for a freeshard and PVP imho

The idea of UOSA is not to modify, pick and choose features, but accept the era as a whole. Stat loss was 9%-20% so it will probably be implemented here. When talking about major game changes "imho" needs to be thrown out imho, because only facts matter.

i'm with u faust

I don't think Faust would appreciate you twisting his words. We butted heads over dumb shit in IRC but I respect the man and his knowledge of the era. He got the patch notes stating stat loss was in fact 9%-20% on real osi T2A. Derrick's got a full plate (-16 dex loss! wow I need to stop playing so much) but I'm sure it will be looked at.

[Faust]

When I said it wouldn't be changed it wasn't an official declaration, or declaring that the current system is better. I was stating that just because I listed the accurate information it doesn't mean it will be changed. This meant that it is soley up to Derrick for this decision if he decides to ever change it. I have nothing to do with it. I personally would prefer the accurate system, because I think every little piece of code should be 100% accurate to the era.

[Red]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't short term/long term murder counts come out in UO:R?

[Faust]

Not that I am aware of. I think stat loss was removed sometime around AOS, so maybe that is the patch you're thinking about.

[platy]

The idea of UOSA is not to modify, pick and choose features, but accept the era as a whole. Stat loss was 9%-20% so it will probably be implemented here. When talking about major game changes "imho" needs to be thrown out imho, because only facts matter.


I don't think Faust would appreciate you twisting his words. We butted heads over dumb shit in IRC but I respect the man and his knowledge of the era. He got the patch notes stating stat loss was in fact 9%-20% on real osi T2A. Derrick's got a full plate (-16 dex loss! wow I need to stop playing so much) but I'm sure it will be looked at.

First of all, how is agreeing with someone twisting words?

Second of all, the staff does pick and choose certain aspects of the game seeing as the t2a era had MANY patches and changes throughout its time.. it would be impossible to replicate t2a since t2a in 98 was NOT the same as in 99...duhh..

i never said anything about YOU or your argument with Faust..
Sry for being a dick but how did i twist his words? I said: i'm with u Faust (as in agreement with his statement that our system isn't accurate, but doesn't need to be changed..)
o.O
thanks for taking my opinion way outta proportion - if they decide to change it thats fine.. i just think it's good as it is
Dont forget, OSI skill gain was MUCH slower than it is here: should we do that too?
-I don't think so...(because some things ARE better left out imho)
I post my opinions like I cast my votes: because if I didn't I would have no credibility when I complain

[Faust]

I didn't actually say I agreed with it not being changed. All I said was that just because I listed the actual way it worked that it doesn't mean that it'll be changed. I think it was just a misunderstanding on both parts. platy thought I agreed with it, and bloody thought platy was twisting my words. Just let it be and forget about it, because it really doesn't matter in the end.

The fact of the matter is I personally would prefer the accurate version of the stat loss to be implemented, because I think if anything is inaccurate it should be made accurate. Again, though this is not up to me and soley my opinion. The situation also plays a big part in my decision if you count out the accuracy argument. For example, there were thousands of players on EA servers during the '99 era. The statloss was at 9-20% at 5-20 murder counts. The risk for being killed and possible stat loss was pretty significant because of the player count. There are a lot lesser players on here and the risk is substantially lower, but the penatly is significantly relaxed. If you look at it in this perspective it really doesn't make much sense to me in all honesty. Why go from high risk and high penatly to low risk and low penalty? It seems like the two risks should be switched in a reality situation. However, UO doesn't deal with reality. If it was made accurate it would only mean that it'll be low risk and high penalty, which to me seems like a balanced system, and not only that it's accurate. If you add in the accuracy stand point it just reaffirms the argument even further.