UO Second Age

Right now, pets auto follow you after being claimed, with no command given to them. Is this accurate?

I'll try to dig up some information, hopefully others can help, but I'm only asking this because Derrick brought it up the other day and suggested that he did not believe that it was era accurate.

Because this is a very very minor detail, it may not be mentioned anywhere. Maybe someone can check it out on OSI to see if they currently follow, and if they don't follow, and we don't see any patch notes referring to it, we can infer that the current system is incorrect....

thanks

This could go along with other pet AI fixes in a unified thread as well.

I belive it's inaccurate, but it's not presently documented as such.

I'd caution against making "minor" changes without proof, especially when these changes are not pursued in the interest of accuracy but rather are pursued pretty overtly in the interest of nerfing another player/playstyle.

Mike: It is about accuracy, unfortunately, accuracy can be viewed as a "nerf" by some people.

I play a tamer as well, so this isn't a witch hunt.

Also, if no other documentation can be found, maybe this can be checked on OSI with an active account?

How many times does it need repeated that "not buggy" should not be considered era inaccurate?

If era accurate means not incorporating the fixes to bugs that were in t2a then what's the point. People are here to play t2a era uo....we aren't here for some experiment in uo history.

Robot wrote:How many times does it need repeated that "not buggy" should not be considered era inaccurate?

If era accurate means not incorporating the fixes to bugs that were in t2a then what's the point. People are here to play t2a era uo....we aren't here for some experiment in uo history.

How many tamers threads are you going to cheerlead in?

Tron wrote:

Robot wrote:How many times does it need repeated that "not buggy" should not be considered era inaccurate?

If era accurate means not incorporating the fixes to bugs that were in t2a then what's the point. People are here to play t2a era uo....we aren't here for some experiment in uo history.

How many tamers threads are you going to cheerlead in?

I would guess in about half as many as you cry your eyes out in.

Robot wrote:How many times does it need repeated that "not buggy" should not be considered era inaccurate?

If era accurate means not incorporating the fixes to bugs that were in t2a then what's the point. People are here to play t2a era uo....we aren't here for some experiment in uo history.

This has nothing to do with bugs. This has to do with the idea that when you claim a pet its command list should be clear, meaning, it shouldn't automatically have the command "follow" given to it WITHOUT a loyalty check.

I understand that players who claim 100 pets at once will not enjoy this, however, if it's era accurate than it's era accurate.

Please, keep this thread clean, remember this isn't the trash talk forum.

the whole stables need re working, including friends stabling etc.

Mikel123 wrote:I'd caution against making "minor" changes without proof, especially when these changes are not pursued in the interest of accuracy but rather are pursued pretty overtly in the interest of nerfing another player/playstyle.

I agree entirely, we need to know that this change is correct before implementing, however the current behavior allows players with zero taming and lore to have a method of getting pets which they would otherwise have no chance of controlling to follow them.

Will some pets that are bought from the stable then only be accessible to tamers that have the minimum requirements to tame them?

valheru wrote:Maybe someone can check it out on OSI to see if they currently follow, and if they don't follow, and we don't see any patch notes referring to it, we can infer that the current system is incorrect....

One other thing... Isn't the original code that we started with, and modify with patch notes, far older than the current production code?

In other words... if our server originates from 2001 coding, and we're in 2009, why would we use 2009 behavior as a basis for our 1999 shard? Wouldn't we want to use the 2001 coding, since it's far closer?

Mikel123 wrote:

valheru wrote:Maybe someone can check it out on OSI to see if they currently follow, and if they don't follow, and we don't see any patch notes referring to it, we can infer that the current system is incorrect....

One other thing... Isn't the original code that we started with, and modify with patch notes, far older than the current production code?

In other words... if our server originates from 2001 coding, and we're in 2009, why would we use 2009 behavior as a basis for our 1999 shard? Wouldn't we want to use the 2001 coding, since it's far closer?

Because if there are no patch notes that address the stabling behavior from our era on one can suggest that this is how it was. Using future notes and current OSI standards to decide what is era accurate usually stands unless there is some sort of rebuttal proof otherwise.

There is no proof of any of this as of yet so it's silly to keep on about it i spose.

My pets don't automatically follow me unless i tell them to before i stable them.
If i say all stop and stable a pet...if i claim it i watch as it randomly walks around. There isn't even a problem here.

poogoblin wrote:

Mikel123 wrote:

valheru wrote:Maybe someone can check it out on OSI to see if they currently follow, and if they don't follow, and we don't see any patch notes referring to it, we can infer that the current system is incorrect....

One other thing... Isn't the original code that we started with, and modify with patch notes, far older than the current production code?

In other words... if our server originates from 2001 coding, and we're in 2009, why would we use 2009 behavior as a basis for our 1999 shard? Wouldn't we want to use the 2001 coding, since it's far closer?

Because if there are no patch notes that address the stabling behavior from our era on one can suggest that this is how it was. Using future notes and current OSI standards to decide what is era accurate usually stands unless there is some sort of rebuttal proof otherwise.

But wouldn't it make more sense to test this in the demo than on current OSI servers, seeing as the demo should be the same as T2A minus any patch notes? Correct me if I'm wrong though as I've never played the demo