UO Second Age

I remember this feature being in T2A as well, although I never had a crafter. I just loved looting people

I remember this during T2A, specifically.

After this being resurrected in IRC... Here is how I see the situation.

Mar 28 1999 9:35AM CST wrote:New items have been added to tinkering.
Jewelcrafting. Crafting jewelry requires you to target a gemstone to add to the jewelry.
Necklaces
Earrings
Wedding rings
These items say "a wedding ring" on them.
These items are "newbiefied" and will remain with your corpse when you die.

http://wiki.uosecondage.com/index.php?t ... atch_Notes

* Creating jewelry requires a gem. When prompted select a single gem (not stacked). The jewelry will be named after the gem, i.e. "a diamond necklace".

http://web.archive.org/web/199904221832 ... m/tink.htm

It would make sense to me that OSI never meant for people to have the ability to create "### diamond" jewelry. They may have had a process that went something similar to this:

Target A Gem
Consume 1
Product Name = (Gem name & jewelery item)

Gem name would return "60,000 diamonds" (or whatever the quantity of the stack was) as a result of poor coding.
Would explain Roadkills theory, it was only meant for single gems as listed on stratics but may have directly ripped the whole name out of poor coding. I'm horrible at explaining, hopefully someone can grasp this heh.

It's my only explanation for all this, clearly OSI never meant for the player to be able to craft from stacked gems, or at least be able to have the ability to have more than one of a gem on a jewelry.

Hemperor wrote:They may have had a process that went something similar to this:

Target A Gem
Consume 1
Product Name = (Gem name & jewelery item)

Gem name would return "60,000 diamonds" (or whatever the quantity of the stack was) as a result of poor coding.

This is exactly how it worked, and it's also the reason it doesn't work here, copying the entire name of an item of an item to another item is a huge waste of space and optimizations like indexing these names instead of saving them verbatim is the reason we can have <10 second full world load and save times. However it is possible to emulate this bug.

Saving the whole name of each item is one of the reasons there were daily 1 hour + reverts on OSI daily.

Derrick wrote:

Hemperor wrote:They may have had a process that went something similar to this:

Target A Gem
Consume 1
Product Name = (Gem name & jewelery item)

Gem name would return "60,000 diamonds" (or whatever the quantity of the stack was) as a result of poor coding.

This is exactly how it worked, and it's also the reason it doesn't work here, copying the entire name of an item of an item to another item is a huge waste of space and optimizations like indexing these names instead of saving them verbatim is the reason we can have <10 second full world load and save times. However it is possible to emulate this bug.

Saving the whole name of each item is one of the reasons there were daily 1 hour + reverts on OSI daily.

So then cant we have this bug here by allowing tinkered jewlry to write the StackAmount as a string affixed to the gem item name?

Absolutely, there are many nice ways to do this on a case by case basis, I just got in the mood to go off about storing the full string as the name of each item

You could also make rings from Christmas tree ornaments. It was a bug that was around when the trees first came out, but was fixed by the next year, if not sooner. Don't know when trees were introduced, but, you could have an ornament ring at some point.

I love that I've been saving all the gems I've found rather then sell them off I'm going to go jewelry crazy

Alex the Artist wrote:You could also make rings from Christmas tree ornaments. It was a bug that was around when the trees first came out, but was fixed by the next year, if not sooner. Don't know when trees were introduced, but, you could have an ornament ring at some point.

I absolutely remember this too.

I also remember seeing 10000 diamond jewelry, but dun remember if it was T2A or UOR. This is the reason that I have about 150 diamonds stacked away, lol, I thought it worked, just assumed it. I was just savin' them up for a future tinkerer. ;)