Rose wrote:Dunno if u guys remember but.... Staff toned down events a while back and the population took a hit.
The population count is an irrelevant point when it comes to events. If we are using the playercount as a driving force for changes on the server, then there are many other changes that could be done to increase the playerbase at the expense of mechanical accuracy.
Rose wrote:You will have to accept that some UO players aren't as capable as other's when it comes to making a sand castle.... so they need auto sand castle's to give them a reason to game.
It is not the job of the server to provide you with content in a closed off environment that removes you from the normal interaction of the world. Players who require that must either accept that they will not get that in a mechanically accurate environment or they should just walk away.
Rose wrote:I would propose the staff reform all "trammel" tourneys/events and slap them in the real world.... Although that would be asking a lot, as I'm sure that would require ALOT of time planning/scripting/fixing bugs.
Removing the events from the "trammel" (although it is arguable that the ruleset for event is
even more restrictive than the trammel ruleset) ruleset is not enough. These events must also be run as normal events, and they must also be non-automated.
Rose wrote:In my opinion, we don't have enough people making PvP type player run events. Combat Trammel with Felucia.
If there aren't enough people making PVP or PVM or any kind of player-run events, it seems self evident that the solution to that problem is
not to provide an automated system that does it for you, and does it in a way that can never be accomplished in the normal world.
Homie wrote:Some people joined this shard in march 2009 and have missed yet the vital points of "trammel" events and why they are not inaccurate (policy thing blabla..).
Events
are a matter of mechanical accuracy. There were
no automated events on OSI servers that existed as a
unique event to any one server. Because the only "events" that might be considered automated (CUB/Trinsic Invasion) were events that existed on
all servers, we must adhere to the accuracy of those events, since they existed on all servers. Beyond that, even the "automated events" that existed on OSI servers did not remove you from the real world.
Panthor the Hated wrote:People only play for events, thus we should remove events to increase the player base?
The fact that people play only for events is the problem. These players must either move out into the normal world, or they must quit because they refuse to interact. Of those two choices, it would be foolhardy to say that 100% of the players will choose one option or the other, which means that -
to some degree - the number of people interacting in the normal world will increase. So yes, remove events to increase the player population in the normal world.
Foefoucheaux wrote:I completely disagree with to OP. I think there should be more events. In fact I have given up waiting around for the couple of random CTF games that fit into my play time schedule. Also please remember the rewards for the events do not impact game play at all and give no advantages to players. As far as I am concerned, silver could be done away with and events could happen on a fixed, daily schedule.
Disregarding silver (which is another topic), events remove players from the normal world, and place them in an isolated area of the game (both physically and mechanically wise). This is something that
never happened on OSI servers.
Foefoucheaux wrote:I hope that people play here for fun and not to gain a feeling of accomplishment that they should be getting from the real world. While I do enjoy being out in the larger UO world, I do not feel a need to farm, collect useless pixels, or rid Brittania of the bad guys, ect. ect. My point is that events are fun. This game is old and most players have done everything that can be done 5 times already. Given this I can not understand why anyone would play with anything but a casual mindset. Events are convenient which maximizes fun for some players. I would rather spend a half hour pvping the whole time then 6 minutes fighting someone in a dungeon and the rest of that half hour preparing.
"Fun" is a subjective thing, and UOSA cannot increase "fun" for all players (because some players fun is inherently decreased when others have theirs increased) The only reasonable approach that secondage can take is to create a
mechanically accurate environment, and let the players find their own fun in that environment.
Foefoucheaux wrote:Finally, I would like to encourage people to add to the shard rather than subtract. Please bring ideas of things you would like to do, rather than say all the things that you do not like. This shard, and UO in general, provides a lot of opportunity for the players to forge the game play and world environment. Saying that the game would be better by removing aspects that a lot of people like is not constructive. If you think that events destroy the community OP you should really get off your high horse and join one. You will see and interact with more players than you probably do in an entire month. You will be team mates with former enemies. Enemies with former friends. It is fun, which I believe is the goal for playing a game.
Again, the issue you point out is one of "fun". These events, which are a matter of mechanical accuracy, need to go as much as cutting bandages one at a time needed to be put in.
Panthor the Hated wrote:Events are very conducive to what I want to build on this shard.
What you or "I" or any other player wants for this server is irrelevant. Mechanical Accuracy is the prime stared goal of the server, and automated events interfere with that goal.
BlackFoot wrote:Era accurate game mechanics are one thing. In game content is another thing.
An increase in in game content will go a lot farther for player enjoyment than a removal of in game content.
"In game content" was very rarely produced by the GM`s on OSI (look at any pre-UOR server and see how few events were actually run). It was up to the players to come up with their own content which is the entire point behind a sandbox in the first place. Beyond that, even when the GM`s
did produce in-game content the content was very rare (as mentioned before), was never automated on a server-to-server basis, and never removed players from the normal world, and the open interaction of that world.
BlackFoot wrote:These events are the best staff can do on their schedule to create in game content. When they have time they will replace these events with more real world in game events.
Should the GM`s be providing "in game content" that specifically removes players from the normal world, stifles interaction both in the "content area" and the normal world, and inherently breaks the risk vs reward framework that serves as the foundation of this era over 700 times a year (Or however many automated events take place on secondage per year)? Is that really what they should be doing in the first place?
BlackFoot wrote:well the 'real' argument is that they arent actually an 'accuracy' debate. They are a administrative policy decision. Ie - staff can run any custom event they want as did staff on OSI during the era.
They just have better code to run better events easier than they did a decade ago.
Events in their current form are
NOT NOT NOT an issue of administrative policy. It would be proper to say that what events we choose to run are an administrative policy (because each server had its own set of events), but those events must adhere to the mechanical accuracy of the era, at the very least. This means that we cannot have any automated events. No OSI server had its own set of unique Automated events, We would also need to have all events exist in the normal world. No event ever removed players from the interactive environment. These are important factors in bringing our events in-line with the events seen on OSI servers.
If these actions are taken, then the king and frequency of events that we run could indeed be considered administrative decisions. However, until the issues with accuracy are ironed out, events are very much an issue of mechanical accuracy.
Also, better code is irrelevant as well. RunUO code is better equipped to handle things such as swing times than OSI code, but UOSA has intentionally reworked things to operate like OSI servers (check the patch notes for swing changes). If better code is a reason to stray from mechanical accuracy, then we should consider reverting our code to the original RunUO code, in spite of its effect on mechanical accuracy.
