UO Second Age

Malaikat wrote:I took a class on Aristotelian logic in college, and, from my limited amount of exposure, I dare say that is an atrocity, Mens.

tanmits wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We've gotten off topic. This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy since I think Mens and Rose have made compelling cases that the said mini-patch note is not at all decisive on what preceded it. Why is this change anything but arbitrary considering the detriment it has been to server balance? (The extension to this question is, if it's arbitrary, why not change it back?)

Mens Rea wrote:Let me break it down for you boys.

There are a time tested set of arguments that are inherently invalid on this forum. I say inherently invalid because they do not engage with the stated goal of the shard, and that is to be an accurate reflection of the T2A era - with certain qualifications:

1 - "The change I am suggesting will bring people to the shard."
2 - "The change I am suggesting is more fun."
3 - "The change I am suggesting is just as inaccurate/more accurate than another aspect of the shard which is inaccurate."
4 - "The change I am suggesting is more balanced."
5 - "The change I suggest is accurate because it is my recollection." (Although, admittedly, this has worked for me before a few times long in the past - and in fact one of my recollections which was relied on was completely wrong.)
6 - "This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy..." - tanmits (above)

I concede that there are no defined rules as to all the aforementioned "qualifications" to accuracy and why they are included. We see it over and over again on these forums - runebooks, events, etc. The reality is that the goal is of course accuracy, so if you are concerned about accuracy then there is no point arguing that a certain threshold of accuracy has been overstepped therefore this should justify further inaccuracy. It just takes the shard *futher* away from the shard's intended goal so the argument falls flat - it's time to give it up.

The comments made by Rose and I on this topic give a good example of how you can achieve your suggested changes on this shard. I have personally achieved many, many changes to this shard - sometimes having to rely on creative arguments to at least prove the matter beyond what the counter-argument suggests. There are grey areas. This topic is not a closed subject - that is clear. There are tonnes of resources out there which are not visited/revisted for every single change/subject which is brought up on the shard. Nobody had ever raised the issue that the mini-patch may have been remedial due to it's timing.

To conclude, I give my prescribed format for valid arguments in the context of this shard, these forums, and the subjects on which we discuss:

I suggest change xxxx, it is accurate because yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) and because of yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) the current system should be changed to xxxx.

It's really very simple:

xxxx = (yyyy ≠ (1,2,3,4,5,6))

And as an extra for experts:

xxxx - yyyy ≠ 1,2,3,4,5,6

Rose wrote: Question: 56k modem + movement restriction = impossible dexing in the t2a era. Yes? No?

Malaikat wrote:
Maybe they should purposefully drop every other packet (or 2 or 3) on the server side. You know, to really recreate that t2a experience for everyone.

Kaivan wrote:

tanmits wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We've gotten off topic. This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy since I think Mens and Rose have made compelling cases that the said mini-patch note is not at all decisive on what preceded it. Why is this change anything but arbitrary considering the detriment it has been to server balance? (The extension to this question is, if it's arbitrary, why not change it back?)

To elaborate a bit further, the reason I pinned the statement the way that I did is that it felt (and I could be wrong here) that it was worded in such a way as to imply that UOSA was not about attempting to emulate the T2A era from a mechanical standpoint. Extending from this is the implication that our incorrect mechanic (or perceived to be incorrect mechanic) was in place because we weren't actually attempting to emulate the era - which is a focus not on the argument, but on attributes & assertions of the server itself.

Mens Rea wrote:Let me break it down for you boys.

There are a time tested set of arguments that are inherently invalid on this forum. I say inherently invalid because they do not engage with the stated goal of the shard, and that is to be an accurate reflection of the T2A era - with certain qualifications:

1 - "The change I am suggesting will bring people to the shard."
2 - "The change I am suggesting is more fun."
3 - "The change I am suggesting is just as inaccurate/more accurate than another aspect of the shard which is inaccurate."
4 - "The change I am suggesting is more balanced."
5 - "The change I suggest is accurate because it is my recollection." (Although, admittedly, this has worked for me before a few times long in the past - and in fact one of my recollections which was relied on was completely wrong.)
6 - "This change shouldn't be framed as era accuracy..." - tanmits (above)

I concede that there are no defined rules as to all the aforementioned "qualifications" to accuracy and why they are included. We see it over and over again on these forums - runebooks, events, etc. The reality is that the goal is of course accuracy, so if you are concerned about accuracy then there is no point arguing that a certain threshold of accuracy has been overstepped therefore this should justify further inaccuracy. It just takes the shard *futher* away from the shard's intended goal so the argument falls flat - it's time to give it up.

The comments made by Rose and I on this topic give a good example of how you can achieve your suggested changes on this shard. I have personally achieved many, many changes to this shard - sometimes having to rely on creative arguments to at least prove the matter beyond what the counter-argument suggests. There are grey areas. This topic is not a closed subject - that is clear. There are tonnes of resources out there which are not visited/revisted for every single change/subject which is brought up on the shard. Nobody had ever raised the issue that the mini-patch may have been remedial due to it's timing.

To conclude, I give my prescribed format for valid arguments in the context of this shard, these forums, and the subjects on which we discuss:

I suggest change xxxx, it is accurate because yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) and because of yyyy (without relying on any of the inherently invalid arguments 1-6 listed above) the current system should be changed to xxxx.

It's really very simple:

xxxx = (yyyy ≠ (1,2,3,4,5,6))

And as an extra for experts:

xxxx - yyyy ≠ 1,2,3,4,5,6

I tend to agree with the first 5 points as a litmus test for most suggestions, however point 6 is an issue. Using the current topic as an example, I think we can all agree that just because we don't have a lot of information on the issue doesn't mean that movement restrictions (or the lack thereof) aren't actually a mechanic. Since that's the case, it stands to reason that the change should indeed be framed in era accuracy, and the accurate implementation should be the goal of the server.

iamreallysquall wrote:you realize that people had cable modems by our target soft date correct?

Pac wrote:

iamreallysquall wrote:you realize that people had cable modems by our target soft date correct?

Yes, but some people still used 56k. Therefore, in their reality, everyone used 56k.

I played T2A on a 200MHz Pentium II with 16MB of RAM, so for era accuracy's sake the server should be handicapped to emulate these specifications.