UO Second Age

They are ghosting to eliminate the risk... It's fairly obvious.

Caranthir wrote:

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.

Exactly the point of the post, which seems to be beyond Biohazard's comprehension level.

The options here seem clear.

• (1) Deal with ghosting and stop being a bunch of whining bitches.
• (2) Start down the slippery slope of tampering to achieve shard balance.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:Exactly the point of the post, which seems to be beyond Biohazard's comprehension level.

The options here seem clear.

• (1) Deal with ghosting and stop being a bunch of whining bitches.
• (2) Start down the slippery slope of tampering to achieve shard balance.

No.. I have already comprehended this 35 times and am tired of re-reading it over and over. I simply said why bother stating the same thing. We get it. It is era accurate. But what is not era accurate is the fact that accounts are free. Why do we not have this era accurate mechanic in place? Why don't we disable razor? since it didn't exist at the time. See, now I sound like a broken record.

Clearly.. once again.. you are not reading the thread. Thanks for calling me out again when my last post was 2 pages ago though. Numerous new posts have arisen... why not take shots at them? I don't feel like stating my point again. Also, once again... I will be playing here either way... Ghosting or not. I can argue whatever I want. It doesn't mean I will quit, or cry, or do anything but continue playing here.

Here is my quote from yesterday...

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.)

Can you combat the points I came up with(money, 56k, razor)? or will you just tell me that I need to read the front page again?

Your choice is option two, congratulations.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:Your choice is option two, congratulations.

GJ at avoiding any pertinent point.

P.S. my option is clearly option 1

Allow me to prove you don't read anything.

Biohazard wrote:Also, once again... I will be playing here either way... Ghosting or not. I can argue whatever I want. It doesn't mean I will quit, or cry, or do anything but continue playing here.

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

There is a way, but you wouldn't like it.

Biohazard wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:Your choice is option two, congratulations.

GJ at avoiding any pertinent point.

Your "points" point toward your decision of option two. I don't personally care either way. I'm with you, my logging in or not logging in has nothing to do with whether ghosting is allowed or not.

Medwin Lucrii wrote:

Biohazard wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:Your choice is option two, congratulations.

GJ at avoiding any pertinent point.

Your "points" point toward your decision of option two. I don't personally care either way. I'm with you, my logging in or not logging in has nothing to do with whether ghosting is allowed or not.

You have brought nothing to the table in this entire thread, thanks.

Biohazard wrote:

Medwin Lucrii wrote:Your choice is option two, congratulations.

GJ at avoiding any pertinent point.

P.S. my option is clearly option 1

Allow me to prove you don't read anything.

You seem to be avocating a non-era accurate change.


What I have brought to this thread seems beyond your level of comprehension (as previously stated).

Medwin Lucrii wrote:You seem to be avocating a non-era accurate change.

What I have brought to this thread seems beyond your level of comprehension (as previously stated).

The only thing I have suggested is charging for an account which is era accurate.

I also brought up 1 login per IP but I realize that is not a step in the right direction. Find some other ball's to bust please.

Hemperor wrote:They are ghosting to eliminate the risk... It's fairly obvious.

They are ghosting to reduce the risk, the only way to eliminate the risk is to not move your statsloss PK out of your house.

Caranthir wrote:

Hemperor wrote:They are ghosting to eliminate the risk... It's fairly obvious.

They are ghosting to reduce the risk, the only way to eliminate the risk is to not move your statsloss PK out of your house.

No. If the PK see's a tamer and 4-5 tanks, he simply does not bother, therefore the risk of actually randomly recalling into that spawn has been eliminated. If he and hes buddies see 1-2 bards, the risk is reduced as he knows what to expect.

Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

Caswallon wrote:

Caranthir wrote:

Hemperor wrote:They are ghosting to eliminate the risk... It's fairly obvious.

They are ghosting to reduce the risk, the only way to eliminate the risk is to not move your statsloss PK out of your house.

No. If the PK see's a tamer and 4-5 tanks, he simply does not bother, therefore the risk of actually randomly recalling into that spawn has been eliminated. If he and hes buddies see 1-2 bards, the risk is reduced as he knows what to expect.

Its not a difficult concept to grasp.

Now re-read your sentence again paying attention to the text in bold, after that you can go back to refuting points that I didn't make.

P.S. not recalling into a spawn is effectively not leaving the house.

No. You claim they are not eliminating risk, merely reducing it, this is clearly not the case.

My account is currently around 30 days old and from what I've read a lot of threads about multi-client and ghosting problems are from 2009. So I thought I would share my experience with TG ghosting the balron keep and how much it has affected my game play in as little as 30 days. To preface the pic I have I want to explain what they're doing and how I know they are ghosting. Their stategy is to wait until I have provoked the Balrons to attack each other, now because I usually hide inside the spawn area as shown in the pic...they will usually wait until 1 Balron has died, leaving the other Balron weak and slow. This is when they run in, with numbers. You notice they block the single exit, with 1 guys while 2 reds attack me loot the Balrons. So just because a ghost cannot see health bars doesn't prevent a ghost from seeing one Balron dead. After all the Balrons are the threat...I tried to take a series of pictures but i forgot to paste the first one showing the time I arrived at the keep, however, I can tell you and you can see by looking at the Balrons hp bars that hey came very promptly upon my arrival for the 2nd time tonight. Again, this is their strategy indefinitely, facilitated by a ghost, and I know so because it is always the exact same circumstances and the timing is perfect...everytime. In my opinion this is the worst form of griefing that I've experienced in online games because its a purely an abuse of multi-client multi-account availability that directly inhibits my game play. If TG was a pking guild who ran dungeons, and did all the hots spots 5 times a night and caught me there 3 of those times I couldn't complain. But just as others called it, this is a ghost cam and I can't find enough words to explain how BS it is and entirely not era-accurate.