Cancelling My UOSA Subscription

[The Real Sandro]

I'm on my blackberry so this will be brief.

OSI's T2A era was 2 years long, this shard is going past 4. Wouldn't it be reasonable and safe to assume that OSI would fix this stable slot problem by both increasing the stable slots availble, which has been done apparantly, and putting a cap per player in which on how many slots are avaible to them?

[Light Shade]

I'm on my blackberry so this will be brief.

OSI's T2A era was 2 years long, this shard is going past 4. Wouldn't it be reasonable and safe to assume that OSI would fix this stable slot problem by both increasing the stable slots availble, which has been done apparantly, and putting a cap per player in which on how many slots are avaible to them?

I obviously do not like the situation revolving around the stables. Unfortunately, all the changes that I could foresee for this issue all involve a Slippery-Slope Argument that takes the shard away from its goal of Era Accuracy. Sticking to Era Accuracy is what allows this issue to exist, but sticking to Era-Accuracy is also what makes this shard the best shard out there.

As much as I hate to say it, there is no good solution to this.

[Hemperor]

On the stable issue.. I'm sorry but I just don't get the outrage over this. Stable spots have become a commodity, and now must be purchased from players who control that commodity. You don't log onto this server, load up a naked character, and then get angry when you can't fight anything. No, you have to BUY equipment. Why are stable slots, which are the equipment of the tamer and miner, any different than swords and regs for warriors and mages. Spend twenty minutes buying stable spots, I bought 20 for 20k, that is a lifetime supply for me, and I've already given half of them away. This issue is so overblown, I just don't get it. Is it inconvenient for some? yes. Is it game-breaking, absolutely not. Yet again, GO BUY SPOTS. Noobs don't need packhorses, any vet will tell you mining without them is much better. And as a fan of free-market economics, I love seeing new player-markets emerge.

On the subject of free-markets, one thing that can not be settled by players is the problem of AFK resource gatherers. I see it attempted, I know certain players here donate a lot of their time to trying to stop these lazy bums from ruining the market, they block locations, pk, etc. But it's really just a game of whack-a-mole, because the macroer is always one-step ahead. This is one issue that I do think needs more attention from GM's. Certain player markets have crashed recently due to abundance of AFK resource gathering, this doesn't hurt vets (im making a ton of money off this actually) it hurts the new player to the shard who is forced to sell his goods at 60% of what it should actually be worth, now a noobie miner has to mine 30% more ingots than he used to to afford that first house, etc.

As for events, players can take care of these. I'm currently involved with participating in or planning of three events, they go on all the time, I'm shocked how few of our players can actually be bothered to participate. It seems that players really just want free trophies in trammel, not to participate in community-rich events. That being said, it definitely would not hurt to re-start the seer program, and maybe get more of a background narrative going on this shard.

edit: I and others have brought up the suggestion of taking in more staff members. I'd like to add, that I understand this is not an easy request at all. Staff members here are incredibly selfless and generous with their time, and I have never experienced anything but the utmost professionalism from them. Maintaining this high level of trust is very difficult, and requires a rigorous vetting process when accepting new staff members. Maintaining this status quo is much more important than adding staff, and somehow derrick has managed to avoid recruiting any questionable staff so far. Basically... keep up the good work(d-man), keep doing what you're doing, but hopefully some good matches step up to volunteer their time, because I think the shard could benefit from it.

Stable slots take no effort to steal, are often done AFK, so really aren't worth anything. Their value is imposed by them filling the stables for a day and people scrambling "OMG WHERE CAN I BUY SOME". Once people stop making a big deal about it, stables won't be full, like the 4 years leading up to this epidemic.

[Pirul]

I actually think the solution to the stables is quite simple. You make them unlimited, people will realize stable slots are not a "commodity" anymore and will stop hoarding them with junk animals, stable usage will return to pre-hording-to-grief levels, and then the current limits can be set back again.

It is a slippery slope as LS points out. It's stepping on crap to get out of mud.

[The Real Sandro]

Unlimited stable slots will result into too many dragons.

On the reg buying afk. Is that a rule put in just recently?

That's , the individual buying regs afk is no longer a competitor in the reg market. It's now based on who has more in-game time.

[GuardianKnight]

Me and my buddies broke the stables. They did it for the lulz and because I asked them to and I did it because I was mad because I was paying 3k per spot just to get a skara slot. I complained on the forums here and people threw out the " OH GK IS CRYING AGAIN", response.... Now I have 0 spots again and every spot on the shard is pretty much full.

TL:DR? : I broke the stables out of spite and I made everyone cry with me. Karma is a bitch.

[Sheer Luck]

I'm on my blackberry so this will be brief.

OSI's T2A era was 2 years long, this shard is going past 4. Wouldn't it be reasonable and safe to assume that OSI would fix this stable slot problem by both increasing the stable slots availble, which has been done apparantly, and putting a cap per player in which on how many slots are avaible to them?

I obviously do not like the situation revolving around the stables. Unfortunately, all the changes that I could foresee for this issue all involve a Slippery-Slope Argument that takes the shard away from its goal of Era Accuracy. Sticking to Era Accuracy is what allows this issue to exist, but sticking to Era-Accuracy is also what makes this shard the best shard out there.

As much as I hate to say it, there is no good solution to this.

I think this whole thing is based on one problem. That problem is assuming that perfect EA is possible.

Is the inability to routinely and simply stable a pet Era-Accurate? NO.
Is ANY other solution to solve the above inaccuracy, Era Accurate? NO.

There really isn't a slippery slope here.. there are a bare handful of these issues that will/do require an administrative solution. This seems to be one of them.

I'm for a simple, elegant solution that doesn't interfere with everyday mechanics or game-play, which is the real grail here anyway.
Stable Limits per Character Slot is the best one I can think of. I think Limits based on account would be more elegant, but harder to code.
The issue in my mind, is how many? 20? 10? 5? I personally could do with 2. A spare mount and a holding place for my trusty hunting dog or Combat Chicken.... But then I'm not a Tamer.

[the bazookas]

I have something to say regarding the "slippery slope" argument for not changing stablemaster mechanics:

Slippery slope arguments can be compelling, but often fallacious:

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that a fix for the stablemaster issue could be implemented without invalidating "era-accuracy" philosophy of the server; if it is a severely broken mechanic, then certainly a middle-ground approach of "we're trying to keep it as era-accurate as possible, but this particular aspect needs tweaking" is not, and should not, lead to change after change after change until you have a server that barely resembles T2A in any respect (e.g. IPY). The fallacy of the slippery slope is removed by the following:

Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

i.e. if you CAN prove that action A will cause B, which will cause C, etc., then the slippery slope has no fallacy. However, we cannot prove that Derrick and Co. will continue down the path of nerfing the server's ruleset because they fixed a single broken mechanic.

One important thing to consider is:

Sometimes a single action does indeed induce similar latter action. For example, judiciary decisions may set legal precedents.

This is not directly applicable due to the fact is that Derrick and Co. have all the administrative power here, so they are not bound by "legal precedents" in making decisions. BUT, what I foresee happening is people with whatever beef about a current T2A policy will say "WHY DON'T WE IMPLEMENT (insert some non-T2A mechanic here)... AFTER ALL, THEY MADE AN EXCEPTION WITH THE STABLES!" I seem to remember this exact argument while reading arguments for / against automated events. So, although Derrick and Co. are not bound by such exceptions to actually make the changes desired by such people, I'm sure it would get annoying having people badger you to make an exception because you made one previously... but it can't be any more annoying than what is already going on... heh.

I close my though with a few more relevant passages from wikipedia re: Slippery Slopes

This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.
Note that these arguments may indeed have validity, but they require some independent justification of the connection between their terms: otherwise the argument (as a logical tool) remains fallacious.
The "slippery slope" approach may also relate to the conjunction fallacy: with a long string of steps leading to an undesirable conclusion, the chance of all the steps actually occurring in sequence is less than the chance of any one of the individual steps occurring alone.

Given that stable spots really weren't an issue in the original T2A, and that if it were an issue, that something would have almost certainly been done about it (in-era), I don't think it is such a far-cry to say it could be fixed without compromising the goals of the shard.

[SethTersius]

^ Setting a precedent may be a better phrase. No it doesnt automatically mean everything will look like those glittery free shards, but you lay a precedent for other things to change, and people to complain and request things change.

That's , the individual buying regs afk is no longer a competitor in the reg market. It's now based on who has more in-game time.

Isnt that how it should be?

Everything else that is for profit in this game is based on how much time you have in game.

[chumbucket]

I just want to say:

1. Slippery Slopes are most definitely logical fallacies.

2. But even so, when considering a practical matter, a slippery slope can draw your attention to a possible practical problem. The resolution of this is find some way to keep people from making a reasonable move then keeping up that pattern until things get bad. Hence, my suggestion earlier in this thread for a small change to the era accuracy policy.

It is also worth noting, again and again, that either way the stables issue goes, it just isn't that big of a deal. A problem for some players, sure. But not even for those players is it game breaking. What is really at issue here is the policy of era accuracy itself. Should it be changed, and how? Again, I suggested the only change to my mind that would preserve the shard as it has been while getting rid of these occasional problems, i.e., the current policy with an explicit exception for dealing with accuracies in the current environment result game breaking and un-era like results and can be fixed by something that restores the era feel of the game. The stables case would be a perfect example of that (except maybe it just isn't game breaking).

[Halbu]

Out of all the issues you listed, the only game-breaking one is desync for me.

I hope we can fix desync one day here, for sures.

[Nidaic]

Me and my buddies broke the stables. They did it for the lulz and because I asked them to and I did it because I was mad because I was paying 3k per spot just to get a skara slot. I complained on the forums here and people threw out the " OH GK IS CRYING AGAIN", response.... Now I have 0 spots again and every spot on the shard is pretty much full.

TL:DR? : I broke the stables out of spite and I made everyone cry with me. Karma is a bitch.

[Kaivan]

You'll forgive me for quoting your post specifically. I'm not trying to attack you, it's just that your post touches on the issues quite well.

I have something to say regarding the "slippery slope" argument for not changing stablemaster mechanics:

Slippery slope arguments can be compelling, but often fallacious:

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that a fix for the stablemaster issue could be implemented without invalidating "era-accuracy" philosophy of the server; if it is a severely broken mechanic, then certainly a middle-ground approach of "we're trying to keep it as era-accurate as possible, but this particular aspect needs tweaking" is not, and should not, lead to change after change after change until you have a server that barely resembles T2A in any respect (e.g. IPY).

The problem with this kind of position is this: what defines a "broken mechanic". Using the same rational approach to point out that stables don't work like they did during the era, and are thus broken, can be applied to many mechanics (murder counts, houses, accounts, connection speed, etc.). It is an inescapable conclusion that arguing for the net effect of a mechanic invariably requires us to modify the basic principles of that mechanic to try and create the expected effect. There are tons of complications with this, and I could get into a long winded discussion about them, but suffice to say, these issues are virtually unsolvable, and have been tackled by other servers in the past.

This position is supported by:

The fallacy of the slippery slope is removed by the following:

Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

i.e. if you CAN prove that action A will cause B, which will cause C, etc., then the slippery slope has no fallacy.

(Although I wouldn't call our issue a slippery slope; more that a single change logically brings everything else into question.)

Equally important is the following:

One important thing to consider is:

Sometimes a single action does indeed induce similar latter action. For example, judiciary decisions may set legal precedents.

This is not directly applicable due to the fact is that Derrick and Co. have all the administrative power here, so they are not bound by "legal precedents" in making decisions. BUT, what I foresee happening is people with whatever beef about a current T2A policy will say "WHY DON'T WE IMPLEMENT (insert some non-T2A mechanic here)... AFTER ALL, THEY MADE AN EXCEPTION WITH THE STABLES!" I seem to remember this exact argument while reading arguments for / against automated events. So, although Derrick and Co. are not bound by such exceptions to actually make the changes desired by such people, I'm sure it would get annoying having people badger you to make an exception because you made one previously... but it can't be any more annoying than what is already going on... heh.

While it is true that we do not have any legal precedent that requires us to administrate the server in a particular way, the nature of a legal precedent is to ensure a fair and even application of the rules. This tenant is a sound guideline, and is the entire reason that we choose to run UOSA based strictly on mechanical accuracy to a specific point in time. This is as fair and objective as we can get.

Beyond this, the idea of a precedent has an application in the context of modifying mechanics to fit a particular feel. Essentially, if we listen to the requests of a particular group of players and decide to change a basic mechanic to achieve a particular feel for those players, then in the interests of fairness to everyone we must entertain requests for all manner of mechanics.

Finally, I have a couple of comments to say about:

Given that stable spots really weren't an issue in the original T2A, and that if it were an issue, that something would have almost certainly been done about it (in-era), I don't think it is such a far-cry to say it could be fixed without compromising the goals of the shard.

First and foremost, it is important to note that the goal of UOSA is to achieve the best level of mechanical accuracy possible to a specific point in time. Modifying a mechanic compromises that goal. Second, the way that OSI handled the specific issue of stable masters during the T2A era was essentially the same across all shards: add more stable masters. However, this approach was taken to different degrees depending on the server that you were on. This is evidenced by Reena Dae's old taming archive. Thus, the actual availability of stable spaces varied a significant amount depending on the server that you were on. This invariably led to a different experience with stable availability depending on the server you played, and it was even possible that players were doing the exact same thing on OSI servers that we see going on here: they were acquiring as much of a limited resources as they possibly could.

[the bazookas]

I appreciate the well-thought out response. I see where you're coming from. I am somewhat ambivalent towards this very conservative approach to the "laws of UOSA"; on the one hand, I appreciate the fact that the carpet isn't ever going to be pulled out from underneath me (as happened several times on OSI), but on the other hand, the world could very possibly be a better place if changes were made. To be honest, I think I'm happier knowing that things WON'T change, more than I desire to see changes come about (particularly stablemaster changes--since technically those changes don't apply to me since I don't have a tamer, unless you want to make them un-invulnerable again so that they can fulfill their destiny and town kill again )... yet I still think stable spot changes would be a good move for the shard.
CONGRATS! You found this secret message: Kaivan is a doo-doo-head! (hah! nobody attacks a bazooka and gets away with it!)

[ganzomanolo]

the funny part is that it wasnt me doing the macro all along, i thank telamon for falsely accusing me due to the fact that i didnt accept to raise reagents price because he wanted to sell uber overpriced regs again, he even insulted Jax and the went to him crying telling him he didn't, how cool this flashy dude is isnt it ?