UO Second Age

Zeppelin wrote:So basically this dude played T2A 1999, came and played here, saw it was relatively exactly the same as it was, got mad and left?

Next time dont post about it and just leave; 382 unique IP's (at time of posting) disagree with you and probably think that you are an idiot.

I wont even touch base with the pvp fundamentals of the era, since you think LJ is Pre UO:r. (you lost all credibility)

Guy makes post talking about the things he enjoyed about UO right before trammel becomes active. The time when they added new abilities and balanced classes before opening noob land.

Community spends 4 pages telling him how wrong he is and that he has no right to an opinion because it doesn't fit with the one world order here.

You don't want to admit it because you hate trammel so much, but the best time in UO was the period RIGHT before trammel opened for business.
The changes to the skills and fighting abilities were things EVERYONE wanted and were bitching night and day for them to implement.

Trammel put such a bad taste in peoples mouths that they blocked everything leading up to it from their memories.

T2A was good as a temporary thing but fixes and equality in most pvp was the thing the game needed during t2a.

nm

The only era accurate things I disagree with really is the accurate bugs.

It makes deceit LL an annoying place to pvp, OSI would have fixed it and did didn't they. I think we should do the same.

And the firewall/box trick that causes you to teleport to the next level of a friended house is also an unnecessary bug.

well only thing I can bitch about about this era, which honestly is a game changer IMO my simple little opinion. And that's a mages ability to heal thru poison its weak... if someone using bandies has to cure first and it takes 18 seconds for one cure then another 15 for a heal... i think mages should have to cast cure before they can heal... anyway the era is awesome I understand him wanting to stick with it just EXACTLY like it was which is cool and all but the guy everyone is bashing on is right a little bit, the era could use some improvement the server itself could use small shit like... house space? lol i dunno i think you just didn't need to shit on the server so much to get your point across its far from boring.

There's a decent amount of small house space. The other day I bought a small house deed, ran around for like 5 minutes, found a spot, and got it on my first try. Then I picked it up, ran around another 5 minutes, found another spot, tried it, and placed it. Then went back to the first spot because I liked it better.

Larger space is of course harder to come by.

Tryndamere wrote:well only thing I can bitch about about this era, which honestly is a game changer IMO my simple little opinion. And that's a mages ability to heal thru poison its weak... if someone using bandies has to cure first and it takes 18 seconds for one cure then another 15 for a heal... i think mages should have to cast cure before they can heal...

Cure potion or 30 magery solves this.

GuardianKnight wrote:Guy makes post talking about the things he enjoyed about UO right before trammel becomes active. The time when they added new abilities and balanced classes before opening noob land.

Community spends 4 pages telling him how wrong he is and that he has no right to an opinion because it doesn't fit with the one world order here.

You don't want to admit it because you hate trammel so much, but the best time in UO was the period RIGHT before trammel opened for business.
The changes to the skills and fighting abilities were things EVERYONE wanted and were bitching night and day for them to implement.

Trammel put such a bad taste in peoples mouths that they blocked everything leading up to it from their memories.

T2A was good as a temporary thing but fixes and equality in most pvp was the thing the game needed during t2a.

Why has no one responded to this^


Figured I would come back and check out the posts. Opps, maybe lumber-jacking synergies were added with the trammel package? Give me a break it's been over a decade. Anyways, GuardianKnight thank you for posting.

other than precasting being removed, there were no real changes to combat mechanics until UO:R was actually released.
http://update.uo.com/design_196.html

gk, please inform what made the game so much better in the weeks/months leading up to trammel...

This is why Pirul/Atraxi/LS CV/DG etc folks are the true GGG's of the shard on not self appointed do gooder GK.

Guy comes crying and trolling about the era being crap, and gives idiotic suggestions. Folks retort with it being accurate and gtfo.

Tank mages were prevalent during T2A, as they should be here. Its era accurate. It is not the end all build, and too many people have proved that as well.

arrowface wrote:Warriors stand absolutely no chance versus mages now.

Strongly disagree.

While the PvP system in this era is certainly unbalanced, its how it was and despite it being the truth: This shard is meant to emulate that era. That is certainly a truth as well.

This is not a production shard, nor a progressive shard; its a virtual persistance of collective memories created in order that people might be able to travel back in time mentally (and whatever pros/cons) that might come with it.

Best take it for what it is, play it, enjoy it, re-live it; then move on.

arrowface wrote:Warriors stand absolutely no chance versus mages now.

Yes, I agree that this statement is absolute bunk. It should read "Warriors who don't know how to PvP (and prepare for PvP) stand absolutely no chance versus mages who know how to PvP".

But guess what? The following is true too:
"Mages who don't know how to PvP stand absolutely no chance versus mages who know how to PvP."

The only way PvP would be fair is if it were decided solely by a roll of the dice (and that would be ridiculous)... otherwise it is a combination of player skill and character template--and in my experience of PvP (which is 90% of what I do on this server), a well played warrior is at LEAST as powerful as a well played tank-mage.
Furthermore, I have found my 2x GM med warrior character to be extremely difficult to defeat (and fun to play).

It gets old to hear this same old refrain of warriors being nerfed, which complaint is inevitably the result of a noob who builds his character up (maybe 4x GM, maybe 7x GM--it doesn't matter), goes out for some PvP with no idea what he's doing, gets pwned, and then blames it on his template. It's not as unbalanced as you think (in fact warriors who know what they are doing are arguably more powerful than a mage).

The fact is, you should learn what you can from your failures (and from others), as well as from what your enemies do... if you do this, you might one day be competitive in PvP, and if you don't, then it doesn't matter if you are: a tank mage, a warrior, a tamer, whatever--you will always get pwned.

I've killed PK's 1v1 with a mage-bard (you have to have the right kind of monsters around, but I've done it before). Now THAT'S unbalanced--doesn't mean it can't be done. AND it doesn't mean it's not fun to try even though the odds are stacked against me. I mention this just because it's another take on the "perceived" imbalance that you see (assuming it truly exists, which it does in the case of a bard). You can either say "It can't be done" or "I'm going to figure out a way to make it work, and I'm going to have a lot of fun trying even though I might die a lot". It's up to you.

I think the larger "problem" (I use quotes, because it's not really something I consider problematic) is that the curve for a tank mage is more forgiving than for a warrior. A tank mage, essentially, needs reagents and a halberd and little else to be highly effective and badly played mages will generally dominate badly played warriors. A warrior needs potions, bandages, armor, a good weapon, and (in some cases) at least a dollop of magery themselves to be highly effective.

At the high end, it balances out. But at the low end, it is mage dominated, which leads to the perception that tank mages are overpowered. This isn't really a good or a bad thing, it just is.

Holy Mittens wrote:I think the larger "problem" (I use quotes, because it's not really something I consider problematic) is that the curve for a tank mage is more forgiving than for a warrior. A tank mage, essentially, needs reagents and a halberd and little else to be highly effective and badly played mages will generally dominate badly played warriors. A warrior needs potions, bandages, armor, a good weapon, and (in some cases) at least a dollop of magery themselves to be highly effective.

At the high end, it balances out. But at the low end, it is mage dominated, which leads to the perception that tank mages are overpowered. This isn't really a good or a bad thing, it just is.

lol a geared up dexxer can beat a geared up mage NP.

balanced.