UO Second Age

let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy. and the fact that they're often hitting harder than my power and vanq hallies. will this ever get fixed? this makes it so macers and fencers can't compete-- and they did in this era.

Matty wrote:let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy.

Memory is the least respected form of EA proof.

Matty wrote:let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy. and the fact that they're often hitting harder than my power and vanq hallies. will this ever get fixed? this makes it so macers and fencers can't compete-- and they did in this era.

Memory is fallible.

Matty wrote:let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy. and the fact that they're often hitting harder than my power and vanq hallies. will this ever get fixed? this makes it so macers and fencers can't compete-- and they did in this era.

Halberds roll 2d23 dice. GM adds +4; power adds +7.

In the long run, the Power will do more damage. But, the GM will do more damage a good portion of the time (40% ?).

The only reason it seems that they hit too hard is because they hit too often.

Most mages on UOSA have 35 dex and do most of their damage with the hally.

It's a bit inaccurate but I can't figure out how it should be fixed, we'll never know maybe.

Psilo wrote:The only reason it seems that they hit too hard is because they hit too often.

Most mages on UOSA have 35 dex and do most of their damage with the hally.

It's a bit inaccurate but I can't figure out how it should be fixed, we'll never know maybe.

you cant really prove it could be that way in era can you? what if nobody tried to make 35 dex mage?

Well, the other reason is, many people are used to freeshards that try to replicate the era. And, until recently, I don't think a single other one properly factored into account the bonus to damage a weapon gets based on its durability.

Matty wrote:let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy. and the fact that they're often hitting harder than my power and vanq hallies. will this ever get fixed? this makes it so macers and fencers can't compete-- and they did in this era.

Actually GM Halberds did hit harder than Vanq on OSI. The "+4" mentioned is actually just the average people came up with to sum up that most GM weapons hit somewhere between might and force, which are +3 and +5 respectively. In reality, exceptional weapons gained a 20% damage bonus over normal versions. This results in weapons with a high damage range, like halberds, heavy x-bows, and warhammers having a higher top end to their damage range than vanqs, while vanqs had a better minimum damage due to the flat +7 increase. Since T2A revolved heavily around insta kills from mana dump > hally whack, that made GM halberds superior to vanqs for many players.

mdubb wrote:

Matty wrote:let's all get real. where's the proof? the proof is that we all remember GM hallies didn't hit this hard without anatomy. and the fact that they're often hitting harder than my power and vanq hallies. will this ever get fixed? this makes it so macers and fencers can't compete-- and they did in this era.

Actually GM Halberds did hit harder than Vanq on OSI. The "+4" mentioned is actually just the average people came up with to sum up that most GM weapons hit somewhere between might and force, which are +3 and +5 respectively. In reality, exceptional weapons gained a 20% damage bonus over normal versions. This results in weapons with a high damage range, like halberds, heavy x-bows, and warhammers having a higher top end to their damage range than vanqs, while vanqs had a better minimum damage due to the flat +7 increase. Since T2A revolved heavily around insta kills from mana dump > hally whack, that made GM halberds superior to vanqs for many players.

No. It's literally +4 in the demo for an "exceptional" weapon. So, that's where the "+4" came from. The actual code.

Mikel123 wrote:Well, the other reason is, many people are used to freeshards that try to replicate the era. And, until recently, I don't think a single other one properly factored into account the bonus to damage a weapon gets based on its durability.

This.

damage bonus for durability isn't even accurate and is going to be removed

It might be that way in the demo, but I've heard otherwise for retail from UO Powergamers. Stratics does list it as a +4, so no idea which is right. Patch notes from pub 17 say they changed magic weapons to % based bonuses in AoS, but the way it's worded, I'm not sure if they changed normal exceptional weapons too, or if it was already like that.

I don't remember a damage bonus for durability at all, aside from weapons and armor losing effectiveness because they are not in like new condition.

Problem is the 2 second hally cycling... Nobody has yet to prove this, and it seems to be a fanservice for the pvpers who are used to RunUO.

mdubb wrote:I don't remember a damage bonus for durability at all, aside from weapons and armor losing effectiveness because they are not in like new condition.

Imagine a weapon doing 25 damage unused and 15 damage falling apart.

On the one hand, it could be that it's a 20 damage weapon, which gets as much as a 25% bonus for being in full repair, or gets a 25% handicap for falling apart.

Or, it could be a 25 damage weapon that gets no bonus for being in full repair, and as much as a 40% handicap for falling apart.

There's no difference. They both hit the same in full repair and the same in falling apart. You literally cannot tell the difference. So to say you know how it was, one way or another, is not true.

BUT THE DEMO IS ALWAYS RIGHT...
When are we going to get off this "its in the demo" kick? I'd trust memory over the demo, and I don't trust memory. If anything is going to be changed please use real evidence.