POLL: NO Razor Allowed for One Week

[Dagon]

One person's delusional argument over third party programs and how they relate to our time frame has inspired me to prompt this question/suggestion to you all.. since era accuracy of third party programs appears to be a relevant concern.

A 3rd party utility isn't the same thing... Razor isn't era accurate but it's allowed.

Suppose the only distro available for UOAM is UOAM 5.0. Assume the end of our target era was at UOAM 3.0. Sometime during UOAM 4.0 they introduced a feature to automatically sync spells/targets via a client hotkey. Would you think that it is accurate to use UOAM 5.0 on the grounds that UOAM 3.0 was available/legal in the era we emulate?

So Razor is ok, but UOAM is not because it has a feature that was added after our time frame. (lol) A feature added 10 years ago, versus actively developed and maintained 10 years after our target time frame.

I propose that for ONE WEEK, 7 whole days, Derrick blocks Razor from being used to connect to the shard. This is NOT the same argument of limiting Razor's features, but to completely block it, -temporarily-, for one week. There is enough debate over the functions of Razor so don't branch off into making it about that.

I have already given out a client in the newest UOSA Client Installer that can be used to connect to UOSA WITHOUT Razor, so there is absolutely no argument that we NEED Razor to connect. I can make the file available for everyone who needs it without grabbing the whole installer (there is also a new installer coming up, so don't run out to download the currently available one either!)

I think it would be interesting to see how, if any, playing in ERA ACCURATE form without Razor, changes the game for the week. I know this will not be popular since most of you cannot function without Razor, but it's era accuracy like all of the unpopular changes.

Disable your comments about the availability of UOAssist for some of the functions found in Razor.. we are not using UOA, and this is not about UOA, and there is no reasonable debate to be made that we "should be allowed to use something like UOA" just because UOA existed back then. Unless you want to buy a license to use Razor for the week, paid to Derrick, just like you had to buy UOA.

[Corbin]

People would never agree to this. Plus, there is no way to really block razor in the same way there is no real way to block other 3PPs.

[Dagon]

People would never agree to this. Plus, there is no way to really block razor in the same way there is no real way to block other 3PPs.

Sure there is, it's entirely possible. Haven't you ever connected to a shard and had it tell you that you needed Razor's negotiate features enabled, or something else? It's completely detectable upon logging in, so Derrick can then turn around and disconnect you until you connect without Razor.

[Faust]

Razor actually can't be detected.

The RunUO script that you speak of Dagon was an addition Zippy added to Razor in order to restrict players from utilizing the programs full potential. This script can only remove some of the features but not all of them from being used. A player that doesn't have the negotiating box in Razor checked will be kicked from the server upon logging in.

I wish there was a way to restrict Razor or remove it completely but there isn't unfortunately.

We can only use the same method that is currently being used in Razor to remove it by utilizing it inside one of our own.

There is no such program in existence making this impossible until Derrick's pet project over at JoinUO.com is up and running.

[nightshark]

Disabling features would be nice, but there's no way in hell I would even want to play without razor. I paid for UOA on OSI, so it's not like everything was done manually there.

I think the issue with razor is more the unattended macros it makes possible, among other issues like multi clienting. Disabling razor for a week is not going to make a dent in the damage that causes. I don't really care if people use it in PvP, but it would be nice to have every little thing done with skill, rather than pushing buttons that automatically do perfect timings. I don't care what people say, the perfect timings that are available in razor help, not hinder. You can cancel a macro mid-way through if the situation changes... that little hotkey "stop playing macro".

[Nevermore]

I don't use razor to connect to the shard and I do just fine

[BlackFoot]

cause you havnt ran into me in the field

[Al Jourgensen]

Well shit that would mean a week of macroing the old school way. Jamming a piece of paper into my keys. Or I just us my programmable keyboard.

[Donk]

Razor isn't era-accurate, but UO Assist is. Unless you have a suitable alternative that provides the same functionality as players back in T2A gained from UO Assist then your proposed change actually makes the server LESS accurate. People wouldn't be able to chug potions the way they did back in T2A, they wouldn't be able to equip/disarm specific weapons like they did back in the day, and they wouldn't be able set up complex macros like they did back in the day. I think you're getting too hung up on the name of the application providing the functionality, rather then the functionality itself.

Your arguments are all over the place. You're saying that because the specific same application that was widely used to provide added functionality back in T2A isn't available now, that we should get rid of all functionality that it provided? Of course, this is even assuming that manipulating the way players interact with this shard is a good idea. This shard tries to replicate the server mechanics of T2A, it does not try to enforce a playstyle that was common back in T2A.

Your post is frankly hostile and accusatory in nature. Do you know why most of us "cannot function" without Razor? Because it provides the same usability benefit to UOSA that UO Assist provided back in T2A. It's great that you can play the game exactly as Richard Garriot intended when he wrote the T2A CD in magic ink like a holy tome, but you shouldn't try to police how everybody else plays the game. Most of us paid for UO Assist back in 1998 and have no desire to return to a time without it (or something extremely similar).

[Van Raily]

I never realized UOA was so widely used back in '99. I only started using it in 2006-2007 on OSI. Kinda' gives me goosebumps thinking about it, hehe.

As for the suggestion, I'm for it just for shiggles.

[Dagon]

This shard tries to replicate the server mechanics of T2A

Exactly.

Matron's assertion that if guild/party chat is removed (server mechanics, accuracy) then UOAM should be disallowed because it would give those using it an advantage of still having a form of in-game communication and since UOAM's chat feature was not introduced until after our time frame it would not be era accurate. SO on that argument alone if third party programs and their features are argued to be disallowed then Razor falls into that category as well. Razor is not a 100% clone of UOA therefore it has inaccurate features and the whole program should be disallowed according to the logic set forth (although I'm not an advocate for this, I like Razor!).

The entire argument put forth over third party features being inaccurate means we all have to be using Windows 95/98/ME because Microsoft did not introduce new advantageous features until Windows XP. Derrick needs to have some sort of a gateway that we connect through to limit our connections to the server at 15kbps since broadband was not widespread in every home. Where does it end?

Party/Guild chat may not be accurate, but since some people use it to their advantage if it's taken away then the argument is to take away everything else also? Cake and eating it too, eh..

So, back to the topic at hand, if some way was figured out to block Razor, it wouldn't kill you to play for a week without it. Actually, it might kill you, since pks would not have a greater advantage without all the features of Razor.. which is really why people are against any changes.



But as Faust pointed out, I guess I'm wrong in the ability to block Razor through such a method that I suggested..

[nightshark]

So, back to the topic at hand, if some way was figured out to block Razor, it wouldn't kill you to play for a week without it. Actually, it might kill you, since pks would not have a greater advantage without all the features of Razor.. which is really why people are against any changes.

I was under the impression that everyone had access to those features, therefore PKs using razor are not at a "greater advantage". What makes you think that someone who is better with "all the features of razor" would not be better than you "without all the features of razor"?

Sounds like a scrub argument to me, if I've ever heard one.

[benny-]

I wish there was a way to restrict Razor or remove it completely but there isn't unfortunately.

We can only use the same method that is currently being used in Razor to remove it by utilizing it inside one of our own.

There is no such program in existence making this impossible until Derrick's pet project over at JoinUO.com is up and running.

I know that this has been brought up before...but why is it required to connect in order to negotiate features? Just trying to understand how these two are related.

Also, I've seen you mention this pet project before...is this something actually being worked on....is it possible we may have a solution to inaccurate third party features?

[nightshark]

I wish there was a way to restrict Razor or remove it completely but there isn't unfortunately.

We can only use the same method that is currently being used in Razor to remove it by utilizing it inside one of our own.

There is no such program in existence making this impossible until Derrick's pet project over at JoinUO.com is up and running.

I know that this has been brought up before...but why is it required to connect in order to negotiate features? Just trying to understand how these two are related.

Also, I've seen you mention this pet project before...is this something actually being worked on....is it possible we may have a solution to inaccurate third party features?

I'm guessing the packets are sent through razor in that case, so the server would be sending out different information compared with what a standard UO client expects to receive.

[Faust]

I know that this has been brought up before...but why is it required to connect in order to negotiate features? Just trying to understand how these two are related.

Also, I've seen you mention this pet project before...is this something actually being worked on....is it possible we may have a solution to inaccurate third party features?

A negotiation feature is required to bar any other 3rd party client from connecting to the server. For example, let's say we are using a modified version of Razor that restricts any inaccurate mechanism generated by the program. If there was no negotiation feature the server would not be able to tell what version of Razor you were using. Players could simply load up a Razor without the server knowing what is being used, etc.. The same would be required if we were using Derrick's pet project if it was finished. If there was no negotiation feature that prevented someone from being on the shard than there would be no limit for a player to use Razor instead of the pet project utility. The negotiation feature in other words communicates with the server allowing it to know what is being used and to restrict in the program.

Hope all this makes sense.