UO Second Age

Since so many people are clamoring for something to change in the pvp mechanics, a lot of it in relation to the swing timer, could you possibly consider just using whatever default weapon swing mechanics that Divinity uses until your own fix is put into place?

Because honestly, if this shard had the same swing mechanics that divinity has, then it would be Perfect. Divinity has fun weapon mechanics but shitty casting mechanics, where UOSA has fun spell mechanics but poor weapon mechanics. This would be the perfect system!

I post this because the possibility of a patch for fixing the current mechanics on uosa is unforeseen, we have heard there maybe one coming but we don't know how long it would take to become reality.

What would you all think about this?

You'll have to excuse me when I say what exactly is wrong with the swing mechanics?

if you ever mention divinity here again....

no, gtfo

Iced Earth wrote:What would you all think about this?

Pretty sure your suggestion is gonna get smashed into oblivion.

Derrick said in another thread recently:

I agree that something seems off on these reports, and will investigate this. The weapons code is very likely going to be torn completely apart soon at least for testing of some new theories that have surfaced, this will be a good opportunity to look at these questions.
Mongbats (the weak ones) have 4d2 hit points, as per OSI. I don't understand how they can survive more than one or two hits either.

excellent.

its not a great system but ull find pvp >:[

Edgeucated wrote:You'll have to excuse me when I say what exactly is wrong with the swing mechanics?

the only good thing about this thread is your avatar

Pro wrote:its not a great system but ull find pvp >:[

I personally think our current system is great even as is, it is not perfect though. Right now UOSA's pvp is better than ANY other player-run shard has ever had, in history.

We still have work to do on it though and that's why a patch is in the works right now.

For the record, and I'm not caught up on the main threads on this subject, there are still (admittedly but those that have been working on this swing timer issue for over a year) some "unknowns" in the proposed swing timer changes.

I don't feel it's a good idea to make any changes until the confidence level on what we are changing to is virtually irrefutable. We have too often erred in the past by putting mistaken mechanics on UOSA. I do not want to repeat prior mistakes.

What we have currently may not be 100%, but it's understood. That being said, finalizing this system is a top priority; the publicity that surrounds this understandably makes players feel as though they are in limbo waiting, which is the last thing we want.

Would say more on the lines of almost half a year Derrick. Batlin didn't even make the original code public until September '09.

Unfortunately, there will always be unknowns even when you think it's right. Who would have imagined the original timer looped when in combat to begin with? However, it does make a lot of sense now once you start digging further into the process and doing some research on it. Hell, the UOR patch note was practically a dead give away of this process that involves the range check and holding a swing in a held state. Applying insta hit into the original code is quick and extremely easy. The only real big 'unknown' to be honest is the prep time that came with insta hit patch. Definitely confident that +95% of it is right though. Better than the current swing timer system that probably isn't even a quarter percentile to being accurate.

Better than the current swing timer system that probably isn't even a quarter percentile to being accurate.

Exactly, haha. If we can get this changed then we need to start testing it right away. Having to constantly stop, move, stop, move to "accumulate 1.8 seconds " just feels too mechanical and silly and certainly isn't accurate.

Are you really that lonely Pristiq?

Honestly, never seen someone try so hard to get just even a smidge of attention on the net... must be why you pursue a 17 year old boy on IRC non-stop. Hopefully that is the motive anyway... We don't really need anymore of them pedo bear rape faces tossing sucker sinkers on the internetz son.