This whole Era Accurate Argument

[Hyder]

I love the shard just the way it is... with that said:

The problem I have is this, (prob already been answered) at which point in T2A are we stopping? Is there a hard line of everything that was in the game Dec 21, 1999. My problem is that there were somethings that were in the game in 97 and 98 that I really liked. but they changed them getting ready for Trammel, and now we make that change also, (dont yell at me Faust). One thing I really hated, was the thief changes. It was in the game in 1998 but they changed it in 99. If everyone likes it leave it alone. Its was T2A era accurate, but was not in the correct number of months or something like that..

Anyways, I love the bugs the shard, the houses, everything that was T2A leave it alone. I was talking with a friend of mine and he asked me if EA release a classic T2A server would I play?? I said NO. Why, because the dev's would try and fix all the bugs. example, LL room bug. it was era accrurate, so its here. on the new classic server would it be something they would try and fix?

Anyways Derrick has it right go for T2A era and leave everything else out... Im not saying this to be an @$$ but, there are other shards out there is you want new houses or beetles to ride. I for one say dont change a thing... Freeze the shard in time as of today... well fix archery first then freeze it.

[Manfromx]

Fair enough

I doubt I'll go anywhere though. This is my favorite era too!

Unless someone wants to do exactly what Derrick is doing only adding a couple things and maybe tweak a few things sure. I'm comfortable with giving someone a crack at it if they maintain they want to retain the most important aspects of T2A.

I find it unlikely that will ever exist though. As initially it'd be competing directly with this one.

[Donk]

I do see your point, it's not a totally invalid argument, and it's fair to say that even in the T2A "golden era" certain mistakes were made which it would be nice to rectify now that we're 12 years on and have the benefit of hindsight. That said, I've seen first-hand what happens to shards when you change things, even the most minor things, for convenience's sake. Eventually the people who complain the loudest dictate the changes, and they're not always changes made for the good of the whole shard.

The T2A model may not be perfect, but it is a concrete model that can be adhered to. We don't have to rely on the admin's best judgement or the player consensus or any other subjective measurement to decide on features. If it was in the game, it is in the game. T2A didn't get everything right, but it must have gotten enough right for people to have played way back when.

[Rendar]

I can agree with the slippery slope argument, in that, once change (deviating from the original intentions of the shard) occurs, it's easier to justify further change. Next thing you know we have Pot tossing Alchemic Ninja Wizards wearing ice-robes armed with glacial staves.

What he said.


I quit UO within 2 weeks of the release of UO:R. Frankly, it makes it easier not knowing what I'm missing.


PS: Ninja Wizards? W....t.....f?

[Manfromx]

Ugh

[rouss]

this shard has been running for 2 years now, twice as much as t2a was itself


what happens once we reach 99-100% accuracy?

[nightshark]

this shard has been running for 2 years now, twice as much as t2a was itself


what happens once we reach 99-100% accuracy?

UO:R?

[Pac]

The slippery slope argument is BS.

No, its not. I've seen it happen countless times in all the online games I've played, especially UO. And always the people screaming for changes are the ones saying there is no slippery slope, and they're always wrong.

[Van Raily]

Okay okay I get it you guys lol.

To you, UO is like a model ship you built. You can look at it but don't touch it. It's fragile! See if you touch it just once, you won't be able to stop. Then it'll be twice and then what. Broken ship!

For me UO is more like an RC car. I actually can improve it and play with it and fix it should it break.

The slippery slope argument is BS. No one knows what would happen. You could limit additions to only certain things (like a few new houses in this case) and then stop. I know this seems impossible to you all because OSI burned you.

Jeese, if I lived my life by the "slippery slope" attitude I'd sure get nowhere fast.

If you don't want this to be anything but pure 2nd age then just say so. I understand that at least and it doesn't seem like a lame argument.

I agree.

I think my issue with this shard is the NEA argument. It's hypocritical. Stew and peas are holiday rares or some nonsense, and CTF/Bagball tournies for trophies to use to "purchase" rares or add-ons or CBDs? Keeping dry dock boats (making the boat a model) out of convenience instead of having harbor masters do the work? Even the rampant proliferation of magic items; I don't recall so many force and power weapons being thrown on the ground. So sorry, but this shard is not era-accurate. It looks like T2A. It might, at times, feel like T2A. But it isn't, and not even for the "well, it's not 1999 anymore, newb" argument.

I was 13-14 in 1999. I gotta' say, I loved running out and trying my hand at PvP every day I logged in. Here? I've walked/trotted away from PvP a few times out of sheer boredom. But it's not a big deal; some people enjoy it, and that's great. I go elsewhere for my PvP. Here, there's a great community and great devs who put in a LOT of work to make this shard look like T2A. They did their homework (for the most part) on a lot of things and are constantly keeping at it, trying to make the shard more "era-accurate" in terms of game mechanics, which in the end is all they can really do.

Does that make this a great shard? For diehard T2A'ers, I would imagine. For someone who saw good things come out after 1999 and wish they were kept while the bad aspects were filtered out? Not at all, but as they say, when your options are limited, the decision is an easy one.

And so long as this is the best shard out there (which is highly relative to the terrible shards in existence), I will remain here with my guild and do what I can to make the most of it. It's all that can be expected of anyone, really.

[Kaivan]

Okay okay I get it you guys lol.

To you, UO is like a model ship you built. You can look at it but don't touch it. It's fragile! See if you touch it just once, you won't be able to stop. Then it'll be twice and then what. Broken ship!

For me UO is more like an RC car. I actually can improve it and play with it and fix it should it break.

The slippery slope argument is BS. No one knows what would happen. You could limit additions to only certain things (like a few new houses in this case) and then stop. I know this seems impossible to you all because OSI burned you.

Jeese, if I lived my life by the "slippery slope" attitude I'd sure get nowhere fast.

If you don't want this to be anything but pure 2nd age then just say so. I understand that at least and it doesn't seem like a lame argument.

While I understand your desire to have UOR style housing, this falls into the exact same category of why we don't have a sizable number of other things in game: they weren't part of the era. In the vein of your own suggestion, if we were to consider out of era additions for UOSA, what would stop us from adding in just UOR housing. Would we add in bulk order deeds? Would we add in savage kin paint (without savages its effectively a useless item)? Would we add in plants?

I think that you can see the point that is being made, its a matter of accepting what isn't in era as much as it is accepting what we were forced to deal with in era that gets UOSA as close as possible to T2A.

----

On a somewhat related note (and you'll forgive me for picking on this):

My problem is that there were somethings that were in the game in 97 and 98 that I really liked. but they changed them getting ready for Trammel, and now we make that change also, (dont yell at me Faust). One thing I really hated, was the thief changes.

While it is true that the thieves guild was introduced in 1999, it wasn't a late 99 introduction. It was introduced in February 99. I think we can both agree that the game was not becoming "Trammelized" as early as 5 months in to T2A, nor can we really say that the game was really being "Trammelized" until the changes during early 2000 that lead up to the introduction of UOR.

[Van Raily]

they weren't part of the era.

What about things that were always a part of UO that are now rares? Foods, barrels, things that people have known about for over two years and not a word?

What about the multi-clienting? Sure, you could multi-client, but who did you (or anyone else for that matter) know that had more than one account and not because of other members of the family needing more than one character?

Or tree hacks, which from what I've gathered are not wanted to be seen on the forums, but are not a bannable offense otherwise. Or the automated tournaments. Why not get rid of those if we're holding on so tight to "era accuracy"?

These things were not "in era", at least not on Catskills. Granted I was 14 in '99 and more interested in my female counterparts', well... counterparts, though I still think my memory serves me well after all these years.

As for slippery slopes, it is a "BS argument", unless you're admitting that you (whoever "you" may be, be you dev, player, or critic/boardwarrior) are as imbecilic as the others who have come before you and believe you (again, whoever "you" may be) would screw it up just as bad if not worse than OSI or UOGamers, or whoever else.

[Hyder]

All very true but even if it was only five months in was it still in the T2A era. Can't I then make the arguement that it should stay? it was era accurate, grand for only 5 months but still in the era... Lets leave it era accurate but keep the good things. No thiefs guild was in the T2A era so in theory it could be on our shard?? I really dont care to tell you the truth, but if everyone likes it, and its era accurate leave it alone.

[nightshark]

All very true but even if it was only five months in was it still in the T2A era. Can't I then make the arguement that it should stay? it was era accurate, grand for only 5 months but still in the era... Lets leave it era accurate but keep the good things. No thiefs guild was in the T2A era so in theory it could be on our shard?? I really dont care to tell you the truth, but if everyone likes it, and its era accurate leave it alone.

This shard is based on november 1999, so the shard is not picking and choosing which aspects of the game should be in.

[Sandro]

events are a policy and not a mechanical aspect of the game

events cant be accurate or inaccurate, they are a decision of the staff team to hold these events, just as it was the decision of OSI to hold the events that they, from time to time, held.

how often they are held is entirely up to the staff, and also, is not a "mechanical" inaccuracy..

[Manfromx]

Weren't there examples just above of how this server has picked and chosen from different time periods outside of Nov99?

As for the slippery slope argument I'm still not buying it. I'm not saying that "No, they will never ever go down that slippery slope". I'm just saying it's not a foregone conclusion like some people think it is.

Yes they could change things. I guess then they could "get addicted" to it and keep changing until your house is pink and you can't PvP anymore.

They could also like I've said multiple times now. draw up a list of all important aspects of T2A (is limited housing options REALLY an important aspect of T2A??)(is cutting bandages one by one??). Once they've done that they can they make those items on their list "holy". Promising never to change those aspects. While improving tedious or bland areas.

You guys.... it's just black and white with you. Either it stays pure and it's awesome because you're willing to put up with the flaws. Or you change one thing and in the end you're a samurai ninja. Come on... There are thousands of levels between T2A purity and OSI's vision of modern UO.