UO Second Age

Kaivan wrote:

Robbbb wrote:i believe that you are basically saying these inaccuracies are in place to try and prevent or marginalize the abuse of an accurate mechanic?

Mostly. They are in place to prevent the abuse and marginalization of an accurate mechanic due to the nature of free shards as free to play entities.

Robbbb wrote:If that is the case then you should be able to justify changing the stable system because there have been a lot of players abusing the system and I am sure there are a lot of other accurate mechanics being abused by players to no other end than to grief the shard/players.

This isn't the same thing. Players on OSI servers could achieve the same result with essentially the same amount of effort. The result takes just one character, and doesn't change when you move to a free shard environment. Thus, no special accommodations need to be made.

At this point, I'm sure we could come up with many examples of how things work differently here than they did on OSI servers, but the important consideration is whether it was possible using the same amount of effort or resource expenditure during the era. For unlimited accounts or connections, players in era would have to pay exorbitant amount of money, whereas players on free servers need only type another name into the account box on the login screen to obtain a permanent extra account. These two scenarios have massively different levels of effort involved, and produce extremely similar results.

Anyway, I've covered this position pretty thoroughly at this point, so I'll conclude my contributions to the discussion here.

Really?? Then how come all of a sudden this happened????? Not that I disagree, but you can't argue EVENTS and not argue this!

Except that this actually happened on OSI servers. Stablemasters were made invulnerable during 1999 due to players killing them.

Seriously though, this comparison of every single mechanic to events needs to stop. It's a ridiculous proposition to suggest that any inaccuracy, whether intentional or not, can be segued into an argument for events.

I want proof that it was before our cutoff time




TC

Tiwstacain wrote:I want proof that it was before our cutoff time




TC

Sure.

March 2000 patch notes:

• Any shopkeeper that is currently [invulnerable] will lose that status except for stablemasters.

Trust us... it's all for the best that stablemasters have become invulnerable... (at least, that is, for the average Britannian human--not so much for the bazookas). Just be thankful, humans.

In our continuing mission of protecting Britannia from its greatest threat (humans--and especially tamers with their "domesticated" beasts), the bazookas spent a great deal of effort researching the possibilities and powers of the stablemasters. This research will be published in future Tales of a bazooka. For the sake of this post, however, I will state that the stablemasters were found to be a deadly (and controllable) weapon of such great magnitude as to cause Lord British to poop his pants (as well as to reconsider and revise the amount of protection he affords to them). He obviously decided that it was best to upgrade them to the top-tier (a spot that has heretofore been reserved for himself and the bankers) in response to this apparent "threat". This, in spite of the fact that we were under the impression that he was aligned with us in our mission to protect Britannia (given that he created us for that purpose, and all).

We enjoyed the time that they remained un-invulnerable, however. We made great headway on our mission. All humans, however, should be thankful that they are no longer left un-invulnerable, provokable, enticable, and draggable (assuming that is, that you value your own human life more than the greater cause of destroying all human life in Britannia in order to protect it)

As a teaser for an upcoming Tale of a bazooka: Did you know Rider the (former) Skara Brae stablemaster took a "vacation" to cyclops valley in T2A for a little light hunting?... we have the video evidence, and will submit it in the future.

Kaivan wrote: Seriously though, this comparison of every single mechanic to events needs to stop. It's a ridiculous proposition to suggest that any inaccuracy, whether intentional or not, can be segued into an argument for events.

Just trying to find a loophole sir. Can't fault me for trying!

You can't be using logic and argue things to make other things even to other things here.

Lawyers need not apply


Kaivan

Accuracy till Nov.23,1999 not 2000





TC

Tiwstacain wrote:Accuracy till Nov.23,1999 not 2000





TC

They are using the fact that in 2000 it was changed AND implies that stablemasters were invul prior to that patch. So it is accurate, however there is no date that says WHEN they changed it so we just have to assume it was prior to our era.

If you can find a pic online that is date stamped via an old forum post that shows they were not invul at about the time of our cutoff then submit it. However, I agree with this change as it is good for the shard.

Actually, we have an excellent idea of when stablemasters were made invulnerable. This is a quote from a very old thread on the issue, when we first discovered that stablemasters, in general, were made invulnerable:

Kefka wrote:If it matters at all, I just found the exact time stablemasters were made invulnerable.

September 23, 1999
http://www.uo.com/cgi-bin/newstools.pl?Article=979
Stablemasters are now [invulnerable].

This is relevant because the actual article itself is no longer accessible (403 access forbidden error), but this post preserves the exact line item from that patch, giving us an exact date when it happened across the board.

/thread

seems alot of stable spots are opening up now, guess #&$@heads will have to find another way to show thier headedness.

Don't take a form of kindness as a form of weakness.