UO Second Age

Some inaccuracies for trade windows
1. Currently, if you weigh 350 stones, and you drag something that weighs 100 stones from your bank onto someone attempting to do trade menu, you will get an error stating that you wouldn't be able to carry the item if the trade menu failed. In t2a, this would simply drop below you if the trade window failed.

2. Currently, if you try to trade an item that is 100 stones and the recipient weighs 350 stones, you will get an error saying that the recipient cannot carry the item. In t2a, if the trade was successful the item would drop below the recipient.

3. Currently, you cannot trade an item that was just stolen for about a minute. In t2a, you were able to trade an item right after it was stolen.

4. Currently, I believe that you cannot trade trapped pouches. In t2a, you were able to do so.

Here is the patch note from Feb 2000 stating that this was being changed:
http://update.uo.com/design_168.html

Server Publish Feb 23 2000 10:22AM CST
Trade Window Changes
Trade windows will become more secure.

* You will not be able to trade a trapped item.
* You will not be able to trade an item that was recently stolen.
* You will not be able to trade items to a player if that player cannot hold the items.
o If the items are too heavy for the player or if the items would exceed the number of items the player can carry, the trade will fail. All items in the trade window will go back into each character’s pack.
* You will not be able to pick items up while the trade window is open. However, you will still be able to rearrange items in your own pack during the trade.

i kinda like the trade system as it is ...

i think crab is correct on all of the above

Agree with crabjuice
The current system was added to remove certain scams people used.. I think we should have the old system back

i think the ability of peopel to scam properly increases the value or reputation of a person
it really helps those who put in tiem to becoem known as reputable dealers and 3 rd party helpers for deals

crabs right, i remember attempting to scam people by selling things for 20k+, where they would have to put the money in a bag to get it in the trade window. cancelling the trade window would make the bag with gold drop to thier feet. (this was obviously before checks were introduced) unforunetally, everytime i did this, my uo client would perform an illegal operation so i had to make sure my buddy was there to pick up the bag.
scamming was a huge part of uo during t2a.

There is another feature of T2A accurate behavior regarding items in general that I don't want to go into great detail with here, as it was an actual exploit of the game mechanics that was not fixed until late UOR (and a very bad one at that). However, I will say that at far as these particular issues are concerned, they may have been changes that were both of a client side and server side nature. If that is the case then it may not be so easy to change. I don't specifically deal with the code myself, but perhaps Derrick can shed some light on to how "doable" some of these changes might be. It would be yet another good touch on the era accurate behavior of UOSA.

I think all these are possible to do. I don't have the code in front of me right now so I can't be for certain. The only issue that I think is client side is the ability of dragging items inside of the trade window. Being able to drag items in an open trade was another form of scamming back then.

I think the better question is if these things that were implemented were neccesary fixes. Moreover, will this shard, with new people to UO playing all the time not just 10+ yr vets, benefit from these new players being scammed by expereinced scammers? I'd also like to note people most likely will abuse and exploit the old trade system to the new players for sure...

On top of that, the scamming was illegal in UO second age. I bagged me a house by Win for 40k because he logged out after i gave him the cash, paged a GM and the gm gave me the house. Scamming wasn't tolerated. So, if you wanna get really down to the nitty gritty, GM's would be working extra to avoid scamming and dealing with pages of it i'd assume.

Flash Hardstar wrote: On top of that, the scamming was illegal in UO second age. I bagged me a house by Win for 40k because he logged out after i gave him the cash, paged a GM and the gm gave me the house. Scamming wasn't tolerated. So, if you wanna get really down to the nitty gritty, GM's would be working extra to avoid scamming and dealing with pages of it i'd assume.

I am really curious how this worked? How were you able to prove anything? I don't not believe you but I do find it hard to believe a GM just said, probably based on a log, "yep, heres your free house that he shoulda given you"

Flash Hardstar wrote:On top of that, the scamming was illegal in UO second age. I bagged me a house by Win for 40k because he logged out after i gave him the cash, paged a GM and the gm gave me the house. Scamming wasn't tolerated. So, if you wanna get really down to the nitty gritty, GM's would be working extra to avoid scamming and dealing with pages of it i'd assume.

Scamming was prohibitted once EA took over fully. The T2A OSI playguide says watch out for scammers, it's part of the game.

I am 110% positive I recieved the house before UO:R as that account got banned in 1999 for calling someone an asshole and after review of my account, I had a racially based name... Still pissed about that 10 years later!

The guy said 40k for the house, I gave it to him (not sure if in piles or check, cant remember) and we went to his house and he logged out, I waited a half hour he didnt return. I called a GM and explained the situation and the GM transferred the house to me with everything in it and said "here is your house, congratulations" about 20 minutes later he came by and asked if I found anything interesting in the house and I replied and I remember "naw just a q-staff of vanq". That was it, I also never saw the guy again moreover he didn't stalk the house or anything.

As for Derrick, Yeah the account wasn't activated when EA came around, alreayd banned by that point. So either it was just a realy friendly GM who was fed up with the scamming discouraging a player base from playing, or if it was not tolerated. I'd assume not tolerated becaue plenty people had things changed due to scammers that could be proven. I'm sure there were a ton of lazy GM's who didn't want the headache though so they never did anything...

EDIT: I'd also liek to note I tried re-activating the account in 2007, almost 8 years after being indefinetly suspended asking if I could reactivate, and even a crumbling world of EA UO wouldn't reactivate it.. WHO DOES THE MARKETING FOR EA! MORONS!

scamming on osi was barely illegal. the very first day i played my freind showed me how to create a fake black dye tub. asking 20k for it, he did this trade window scam over and over. never incognito'd or under disguise. derrick is right in saying EA probably prohibited it. osi couldnt care less, and it was part of the non carebear t2a we all remember. i did this window scam as much as i could, to those who didnt already know or have been previously scammed. there were plenty other scams me and my freinds did on a daily basis.

the only real reason i remember people being banned on osi were for macroing unattended, i also remember my freind who had one of those black horses, and when a gm brought him to jail and asked him to get off the horse so he could delete it, the player said no. banned. also talking serious trash to gms/seers were the only other reasons i remember. u probably just got banned cuz the gm didnt like u.

Quite possibly they only interveened when the gain/loss was extremely heavy? Yeah, I called the guy an asshole and claimed i was harrasing him.. he kept looting my kills which I think I had everyright to call him an asshole, i didn't call a gm or anything - but he did and they temporarily suspended my account for review. They found I had a character named "japs suck" and perma banned me on that note aparently the racial thing was an issue.

ya that sounds like it would get you banned lol