NEWS Developer Meet And Greet On Mizuho 2-27-17

[spin]

spin submitted a new Article:

Developer Meet And Greet On Mizuho 2-27-17

This is a summary of the meeting that was held on February 27, 2017 in Mizuho.
Japanese player ⇔ EM Asiantam (Translation for both) ⇔ Bleak · Kyronix · Mesanna · Misk​

​

Mesanna: good morning all
Mesanna: shall we begin


Q1,
EM Asiantam: about election
EM Asiantam: since there are some governors existing who prevents new player
EM Asiantam: so I am requesting you to place some kind of restriction
EM Asiantam: for example
EM Asiantam: they can't vote for 3 months after they becomes a citizen
EM Asiantam: what do you think?

Kyronix: It's osmething that has been asked before and we are considering all options

EM Asiantam:...

Read more about this article here...

 

[S_S]

@Mesanna

That's the biggest bullsh*t line I heard yet that you can't do anything about multiboxing. It should be you REFUSE to do anything about multiboxing.

 

[Uriah Heep]

Asked about Magincia.

In my opinion, was one of the best events ever. Draconi did a great job. But then he left, and the rebuild fell way short of what most of us expected. And per Mesanna, don't look for it to change

Q7,
Mesanna: Greetings

EM Asiantam: about new magincia brokers
EM Asiantam: how about placing them in our houses
EM Asiantam: it's a bit inconvenient to go to New magincia

Mesanna: if we did that then mag would be useless

EM Asiantam: then how about let us able to place normal vendors in New Magincia
EM Asiantam: like our own shops
EM Asiantam: by this method
EM Asiantam: we can have our own shops in case we dont have houses in that shard
EM Asiantam: what do you think?

Mesanna: You can if you have a plot there =)
Mesanna: there was way to much time put into that system
Mesanna: to undermine it
Mesanna: we will have to think and talk about it
Mesanna: I don't want to put in another system that would destory the current one

I think from the last paragraph's first line, she missed the 'we don't have a house on that shard' phrase.
Would be kinda nice to be able to place a vendor on a shard you dont live on, but having to go thru all that crap of bidding, etc etc, just kills that

 

[Dot_Warner]

Mesanna: I told everyone that we can't really do much about multiboxing

Yes you can and you damn well know it. You're just lying to us about the reasons. It's clearly against the ToS you are choosing to blatantly ignore...which would go a long ways towards invalidating it should anyone mount a legal challenge.

 

[TheGrimReefer]

They havent cared about TOS for years. There is so much in this game now that if it happened 10-12 years ago, you would get permma banned. Just like the exploits they know about that they just let go. Glacial Cloth being one of the newer ones.

 

[Dol'Gorath]

They havent cared about TOS for years. There is so much in this game now that if it happened 10-12 years ago, you would get permma banned. Just like the exploits they know about that they just let go. Glacial Cloth being one of the newer ones.

Well, why ban glacial cloth when they are releasing glacial-like dyes through legit means now? Seen those new glacial-purples and blues from the new BOD dyes? *shiver* I'd rather have real glacial over those atrocities people are bank sitting in at Luna on Atlantic now. Truly awful.

They are glacial-colored in every sense of the word except it isn't the traditional color associated with that word.

 

[Dot_Warner]

And Mesanna has publicly stated that she "hates" glacial... Go figure.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Mesanna: I told everyone that we are not allowed to do anything about multiboxing because EA will lose to much MONEY from the banned accounts.

I fixed it so she isn't lying anymore. BS is enforcing EA's TOS the way EA wants BS to enforce it.

 

[Dot_Warner]

I fixed it so she isn't lying anymore. BS is enforcing EA's TOS the way EA wants BS to enforce it.

Then EA lawyers should probably not have approved the present language. Selective (non)enforcement could be interpreted as a breach on EA's part, throwing all aspects of the document into question.

However, I highly doubt EA has said not to enforce it. I bet Mesanna doesn't want to have to explain the sub loss when she or the head BS guy meets with EA at the end of their contract. She'd basically have to say its her fault since she allowed cheating to prosper during her tenure as leader. She's between a rock and a hard place of her own foolish design.

 

[hungry4knowhow]

If they disallowed multi-clienting I would cancel all of my accounts right now.

Before you come with multi-clienting and multi-boxing are not the same. How do you propose they decipher the difference? Walk around and watch players while invis? Where is the staff for that?

There seems to be some personal vendetta in this thread. This game is 20yrs old. If they went through and seriously banned ALL accounts that have violated the TOS this game would shut down. There is no doubt in my mind.

Do you enjoy playing this game? Did you enjoy it 20yrs ago? Because there were cheaters then as well.

I would go so far as to say that cheating has become LESS of an issue than it was 10-15yrs ago.

TLDR: Don't let others mess with your game. I know they are out there. They don't affect me at all because I choose not to let them. If anything they make it easier for me to obtain items that I otherwise might not be able to! See there's a bright side!

 

[arkiu]

Player1: Can we make an old/outdated/useless skill useful again? (tasteID)
Messana: no

Player 2: I like noodles... but there are no noodles in UO!
Messana: "we will see what we can do"

And this is why I have so little faith in the developers.... priorities have shifted to useless crap rather than improving the game itself. Suggested coupling of taste ID and cooking was good. Or maybe it could simply be used as a passive e.g. max skill = +50% chance to resist poison. Anything. We have enough pixel crack aka deco aka pointless crap in this game as is. Please focus on tying loose ends! Someone mentioned the gate bug where it sometimes prompts and other times doesn't. This has been in UO for as long as I can remember. Things like this should be priority -- not pixel crack!

 

[MalagAste]

If they disallowed multi-clienting I would cancel all of my accounts right now.

Before you come with multi-clienting and multi-boxing are not the same. How do you propose they decipher the difference? Walk around and watch players while invis? Where is the staff for that?

There seems to be some personal vendetta in this thread. This game is 20yrs old. If they went through and seriously banned ALL accounts that have violated the TOS this game would shut down. There is no doubt in my mind.

Do you enjoy playing this game? Did you enjoy it 20yrs ago? Because there were cheaters then as well.

I would go so far as to say that cheating has become LESS of an issue than it was 10-15yrs ago.

TLDR: Don't let others mess with your game. I know they are out there. They don't affect me at all because I choose not to let them. If anything they make it easier for me to obtain items that I otherwise might not be able to! See there's a bright side!

Less of an issue??? Seriously????? Less of an Issue?????

Maybe because there is next to no one around...

Lets put it this way... They have destroyed, Mining, Lumberjacking, Fishing, Hunting... Blackthrons, and countless other things in this game... Don't believe me??? Ask yourself why resources were randomized... Why can you not stealth in Blackthorns... and many other things.. because of CHEATERS.

Now in an effort to stop them they changed the Putrifier twice... still don't believe me???

Once upon a time you could go to an EM Event on your home shard and you knew pretty much everyone there... and they were actual players from your shard... Now you go and 90% of those there aren't even from your shard... Why? Because the cheaters have driven off most of them... most people who used to attend the events regularly on GL's won't go anymore. They got fed up over 2 years ago because they not only couldn't follow what was going on at them... but they never had a chance at a drop too much competition from people multiboxing..... too much competition from power gamers out to make a buck... and too much lag they are unable to enjoy the events anymore as well as there are too many folk there who don't care about the event harass the EM and harass the other players... they insult people, ignore the requests of the EMs and everything else...

Yet over and over again nothing gets done... you can page on them... but nothing gets done...

Duping ruined quite a lot and UO Draconi destroyed quite a lot of things ill-gotten... I miss that.

Either they need to do something about it... Or provide the means to do it to EVERYONE... Hey I have the accounts to be running 10+ characters at Events... I bring ONE.

IMO the only reason that she doesn't do something about it..... she's on their payroll. Either she's profiting from what they are doing... heck maybe she's even one of them... otherwise why would they continue to turn a blind eye...

The sub runs out this year... I suppose we'll find out just whats in store after that.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Then EA lawyers should probably not have approved the present language. Selective (non)enforcement could be interpreted as a breach on EA's part, throwing all aspects of the document into question.

However, I highly doubt EA has said not to enforce it. I bet Mesanna doesn't want to have to explain the sub loss when she or the head BS guy meets with EA at the end of their contract. She'd basically have to say its her fault since she allowed cheating to prosper during her tenure as leader. She's between a rock and a hard place of her own foolish design.

LOL The rampant cheating started long before BS got its contract with EA and those same cheating rules were in effect when EA controlled everything UO but you think BS is going to do anything different than what EA did, cheating did not start with BS. You do understand that the ToS was written by EA not BS so why would EA have to approve anything when they wrote it.
Electronic Arts Legal
Privacy Policy
http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/
These are the links at the bottom of this page Ultima Online
Those are all written by EA BS has nothing to do with them but do as EA says. EA still controls UO no matter what you think.

 

[hungry4knowhow]

Ok, it sucks. But lets be honest here.

These days if there is a way to take advantage of a system in place, many will do it. You add in the RMT opportunities that ALL online games inherently provide and even more will take advantage.

This is not a problem unique to UO. When games are fresh and new and the monthly sub money is flowing in its easy to blow some things up.

As games get older there is less and less money coming in, and more and more of that money is "bad" money.

Its their job to keep the game open. I am sure they've done the research and come to the conclusion that it is not financially viable to act. They know whos doing it.

Draconi left in 2009. Thats almost a decade ago. And nothing he did compares to things done earlier when there were even more accounts.

 

[Lord Frodo]

@hungry4knowhow What Draconi "torched" was a drop in the bucket to what was really in UO at the time, those were all little houses. Did any Castles get the "torch"?. IMHO those were lambs that were slaughter to say see what we are doing and honestly those houses could have been put there for that reason. Did anybody really see what was in those houses before they were put under the torch?

 

[hungry4knowhow]

@hungry4knowhow What Draconi "torched" was a drop in the bucket to what was really in UO at the time, those were all little houses. Did any Castles get the "torch"?. IMHO those were lambs that were slaughter to say see what we are doing and honestly those houses could have been put there for that reason. Did anybody really see what was in those houses before they were put under the torch?

Thats generally how it goes anyway.

Cheaters/RMTers bring in alot of dough. Everyone here knows this, some just refuse to be realists about it. Ive played this game off and on since it came out. I cannot think of one single time where i saw a cheater/bug user and it just ruined my day. It doesnt affect me in the least bit other than at this point its helping my favorite game of all time stay open well past its prime. All in all, I'm okay with that. Nothing can be utopian, or exactly right. Just not the way the world works.

 

[hungry4knowhow]

On a positive note. It seems like boats/high seas/pirate stuff is high on their list. This is the second meet and greet in a row it was mentioned, and mesanna said in this one boats/cannons reworked.

Also, the whole taste id interaction did not go as the poster above said. If you read both interactions she did her normal send us ideas thing, but also said dont hope for anything soon as they are pretty full up with content stuff for this year.

These are all good things.

 

[Dot_Warner]

If they disallowed multi-clienting I would cancel all of my accounts right now.

Before you come with multi-clienting and multi-boxing are not the same. How do you propose they decipher the difference? Walk around and watch players while invis? Where is the staff for that?

The difference between multiclienting and multiboxing is fairly stark. Someone running a few accounts and manually bouncing between them to RP, craft or whatever is rather innocuous. Someone multiboxing at an EM event or boss encounter for PROFIT is not only distracting to everyone else, but tends to induce rage...which (at least during EM events) tends to get directed at the attendant EM.

Multiboxers are OBVIOUS AS HELL. A GM could randomly drop by, look for multiple characters acting as one entity, mark the accounts and boot them from the server. Punishments get progressively worse, until, yes, they get permabanned. No, we don't need to debate this, it simply needs to happen.

 

[hungry4knowhow]

Multiboxers are OBVIOUS AS HELL. A GM could randomly drop by, look for multiple characters acting as one entity, mark the accounts and boot them from the server. Punishments get progressively worse, until, yes, they get permabanned. No, we don't need to debate this, it simply needs to happen.

Well, I guess that settles it then. Fuhrer Dot_Warner has spoken.

 

[Dot_Warner]

LOL The rampant cheating started long before BS got its contract with EA and those same cheating rules were in effect when EA controlled everything UO but you think BS is going to do anything different than what EA did, cheating did not start with BS. You do understand that the ToS was written by EA not BS so why would EA have to approve anything when they wrote it.
Electronic Arts Legal
Privacy Policy
http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/
These are the links at the bottom of this page Ultima Online
Those are all written by EA BS has nothing to do with them but do as EA says. EA still controls UO no matter what you think.

Mesanna has been in a leadership position since EA canned the main devs after Stygian Abyss in 2009. She held the title of Associate Producer and Associate Development Manager. Even as the Associate Producer she clearly had the then-producer, Calvin Crowner, by the balls. He was her puppet, as evidenced during several team videos they put out. The later Franchise Producer was even more worthless.

Also, I said EA is the one who made the legal docs. BS is the one who has to enforce them, as the contractual manager of the title. EA just sits back and smirks as our money rolls in, reinvesting it in things other than UO. If EA didn't expect/want the ToS/RoC enforced, they shouldn't have written them. But they did. YOU appear to be the only one confused on what's been stated.

It's clear why BS won't enforce them: they're afraid of sub loss.

 

[Dot_Warner]

Well, I guess that settles it then. Fuhrer Dot_Warner has spoken.

So you're content to allow 6+ characters, controlled by scripts and 3rd party programs to monopolize spawns and EM events?

 

[hungry4knowhow]

So you're content to allow 6+ characters, controlled by scripts and 3rd party programs to monopolize spawns and EM events?

I'm content with this game staying open, and I fully understand WHY nothing is being done about those 6 accounts being automated.

Do I like it? Not particularly, but I know I would HATE if this game closed.

I think Mesanna's response at the meet and greet this morning perfectly sums up the situation we are in. It went something like this:

Mesanna: I told everyone that we can't really do much about multiboxing
Mesanna: but you better be in game if you run it

That seems to be the best they can do with the situation they are in. It's a catch-22 for them at this point regarding forcefully removing accounts. Her response tells me the following:
1) No we don't like it
2) If we cancelled them all we'd be cancelling the game
3) If you are going to do it you better atleast be at the computer i.e. They are willing to do it if you are going to be a ****** about it.

What more do you want from a 20yr old game with a 3-5 person development team? Seriously. Cancelling accounts is NOT the answer. I do not want to have to play free shards. You think things are bad here? Let this **** get cancelled and find out what real corruption and cheating are about. OR you can load up your own version and play by yourself! No thanks on either of those. I will take the lesser of the evils.

 

[Dot_Warner]

I'm content with this game staying open, and I fully understand WHY nothing is being done about those 6 accounts being automated.

Do I like it? Not particularly, but I know I would HATE if this game closed.

I think Mesanna's response at the meet and greet this morning perfectly sums up the situation we are in. It went something like this:

Mesanna: I told everyone that we can't really do much about multiboxing
Mesanna: but you better be in game if you run it

That seems to be the best they can do with the situation they are in. It's a catch-22 for them at this point regarding forcefully removing accounts. Her response tells me the following:
1) No we don't like it
2) If we cancelled them all we'd be cancelling the game
3) If you are going to do it you better atleast be at the computer i.e. They are willing to do it if you are going to be a ****** about it.

What more do you want from a 20yr old game with a 3-5 person development team? Seriously. Cancelling accounts is NOT the answer. I do not want to have to play free shards. You think things are bad here? Let this **** get cancelled and find out what real corruption and cheating are about. OR you can load up your own version and play by yourself! No thanks on either of those. I will take the lesser of the evils.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

While I'm sure the majority of players script at least 'a little' (training skills or crafting overly repetitive things), I'm willing to bet the multiboxers are a rather small minority. If she had the GMs action the accounts, even giving them little vacations when found doing it repeatedly, I'm willing to bet a lot would probably stop or at least be far more judicious. Chronic abusers need to be banned though.

Should we really be willing to bury our heads in the sand and resort to moral equivocation just to continue playing an old game? What happens when the honest players are outnumbered by the dishonest ones? "Any way you want to win..." is a horrid philosophy.

 

[sirion]

Mesanna: our hands are full for most of this year

When people bring up their ideas here, they mostly want to know if the devs would be Aye or Nay to that idea. No players have asked for THIS YEAR, and yet she has been using "Oh we are full this year" as replies in recent meetings.

SMH

 

[DJAd]

1 drop per IP address.

 

[Lord Frodo]

@Dot_Warner cheating was going on when Richard ran UO and Mesanna wasn't even an employee then. EA has always been about the money and as long as the green rolled in they did nothing. The only time EA told Richard to do something was when UO started bleeding accounts and forced UO to create Tram because they did not want to wait for the UO Team to come up with other ideas, it was a fix it yesterday thing and again it was all about the money. EA allowed items and accounts to be sold on EBay it was Sony that got that shut down not EA. The current UO Team is doing nothing more than all the other UO Teams did because EA got the cash. If Mesanna were to enforce the ToS UO would close due to lack of MONEY (subs) and BS would be fired for allowing it. It is called

 

[MalagAste]

@Dot_Warner cheating was going on when Richard ran UO and Mesanna wasn't even an employee then. EA has always been about the money and as long as the green rolled in they did nothing. The only time EA told Richard to do something was when UO started bleeding accounts and forced UO to create Tram because they did not want to wait for the UO Team to come up with other ideas, it was a fix it yesterday thing and again it was all about the money. EA allowed items and accounts to be sold on EBay it was Sony that got that shut down not EA. The current UO Team is doing nothing more than all the other UO Teams did because EA got the cash. If Mesanna were to enforce the ToS UO would close due to lack of MONEY (subs) and BS would be fired for allowing it. It is called

See this is where you and I disagree... certainly at first it would seem that way... but IMO eventually word would get out that they are actually finally taking a stand and decent folk will return. And subs would INCREASE dramatically... I know of several folk who got fed up with EA/DEV's inactivity toward the cheaters and such and quit... who would IMO return if Mesanna and Company grew a backbone and started to actually enforce the ToS.

 

[Lord Frodo]

See this is where you and I disagree... certainly at first it would seem that way... but IMO eventually word would get out that they are actually finally taking a stand and decent folk will return. And subs would INCREASE dramatically... I know of several folk who got fed up with EA/DEV's inactivity toward the cheaters and such and quit... who would IMO return if Mesanna and Company grew a backbone and started to actually enforce the ToS.

It would be nice but I do not know if enough people would return to off set the loss.

 

[Minerva Foxglove]

The suggestion about Magincia..to let people run normal vendors similar to the stalls there. Good for Magincia and for people without house on the shard. What do you guys think about it? Sound good to me but im sure there are drawbacks I cant see. What am I missing?

 

[Donzer]

The suggestion about Magincia..to let people run normal vendors similar to the stalls there. Good for Magincia and for people without house on the shard. What do you guys think about it? Sound good to me but im sure there are drawbacks I cant see. What am I missing?

Yeah I like the idea as well! Dont know what the drawback would be.

 

[MalagAste]

Yeah I like the idea as well! Dont know what the drawback would be.

I could think of a few...

No Pet Vendors to find... all spots taken by offsharders selling garbage and no where to buy a pet...

More difficulties with Vendor Search/more complications to vendor search...

More greed and less player to player interaction.


You know years ago when I first started I knew most of the people who I bought things from... more often than not when I went to their shop (at their house)... they were there interacting with you... anymore you have no idea who you are buying stuff from... more than likely it's a x-sharder or something renting a vendor spot from someone at ridiculous prices making what they sell more insanely overpriced... I can still recall many of the characters I bought from and where their shops were... I knew who sold things at good prices and who was someone to avoid... It's rather like that on Siege still and I like that.

 

[petemage]

That 5 second rule already cracked me up last time when I read about it. Her elaborations on it this time are even better Feels like she makes all that up on the spot without much thinking.

 

[petemage]

The difference between multiclienting and multiboxing is fairly stark. Someone running a few accounts and manually bouncing between them to RP, craft or whatever is rather innocuous. Someone multiboxing at an EM event or boss encounter for PROFIT is not only distracting to everyone else, but tends to induce rage...which (at least during EM events) tends to get directed at the attendant EM.

Multiboxers are OBVIOUS AS HELL. A GM could randomly drop by, look for multiple characters acting as one entity, mark the accounts and boot them from the server. Punishments get progressively worse, until, yes, they get permabanned. No, we don't need to debate this, it simply needs to happen.

Yea, totally agree. But then read how she tries to cover that with some general ruling (like the 5 second rule this time). Instead of just hunting down the obvious top offenders. Show them where the limits are and what's not acceptable. I guess least of us would dare if the multi-boxers had some decency to not ruin the game for other ones.

Just like you say, You don't even have to ban them, just boot them. Most of them will be way too invested in UO anyway to just shut it all down over it

But for now it just looks like the multi-boxers are leading Mesanna around by the nose because they also know her hands are pretty tied.

 

[Merus]

To our Stratics Mods... I think we have had a clear enough answer from our UO Producer that using these 3rd party programs and scripts is acceptable practice in UO so long as they are done attended. Time to lift the restriction on naming and discussing them. We have her on the record that they won't be enforcing any action so long as people are attended.

 

[Drakelord]

Q21,
Mesanna: greetings

EM Asiantam: she wants something that she can trade safely between her chars
EM Asiantam: because she doesn't have houses on all shards
EM Asiantam: she wants to transfer items safely
EM Asiantam: between her chars

Mesanna: we have the safes
Mesanna: use a boat

EM Asiantam: ship is expensive

Mesanna: well then I guess its back to what we did
Mesanna: find a wall that you can not se
Mesanna: nm

EM Asiantam: ok

Mesanna: we actually left the item in the world when we first started
Mesanna: hidden
Mesanna: and logged in with another character
Mesanna: and picked it up

EM Asiantam: she will try
EM Asiantam:

If you running two accounts have one account get a packer, be sure to log the char that does not have a packer where she/he is still standing so that your other char that owns the packer can friend your other char to the packer. If your packer has something in it, the packer will not vanish to the stables when you log out.

Using the packer is far cheaper than buying a boat, specially if your char is a newb with little gold on another shard. I have used this way to transfer items from one account to another for several years. Far safer then looking for a secure site with no one around to drop that bag, and far cheaper then buying that boat.

 

[Finley Grant]

See this is where you and I disagree... certainly at first it would seem that way... but IMO eventually word would get out that they are actually finally taking a stand and decent folk will return. And subs would INCREASE dramatically... I know of several folk who got fed up with EA/DEV's inactivity toward the cheaters and such and quit... who would IMO return if Mesanna and Company grew a backbone and started to actually enforce the ToS.

Sorry but this is wishful thinking. Do you honestly believe that this game will get new subscribers (Not the handfull of frusted vets who left 10yr ago) with that Buggy piece of Software without any real graphic? I will not Start with Account Management or Inflation now at all...

Yeah sure you can make new Popeye Videos on VHS Tape. Most likely some would find this very good.

But the majority of the growing Up folks would mostlikely rather watch something new in 4k and Not the old Jingle WE grow Up with so to say.

Look at competator Games like shroud, wow, diablo, ESO. What you think new Folks would play? The dinosaur? Sure....

 

[Captn Norrington]

To our Stratics Mods... I think we have had a clear enough answer from our UO Producer that using these 3rd party programs and scripts is acceptable practice in UO so long as they are done attended. Time to lift the restriction on naming and discussing them. We have her on the record that they won't be enforcing any action so long as people are attended.

I completely understand what you mean, but Stratics rules about things like that have always been based on the written documentation not just a developer saying something in public. The reason for that is because the TOS will always be more or less the same, while a developer might change their mind about a topic every other week. The rules being based on the official TOS has historically been the most reliable option, especially since the Producer job hasn't always been held by the same person and each producer has different opinions on things.

All that really needs to happen for a website rule to change is for the board of directors to vote on it, but until the wording on the official UO TOS is changed to remove the part about cheats being against the rules of UO, it is unlikely the Stratics rule about that would change.

 

[Prince Erik]

To our Stratics Mods... I think we have had a clear enough answer from our UO Producer that using these 3rd party programs and scripts is acceptable practice in UO so long as they are done attended. Time to lift the restriction on naming and discussing them. We have her on the record that they won't be enforcing any action so long as people are attended.

Actually I think that's not a bad idea - in fact it would be nice if they just bit the bullet and added the ability to login multiple characters and control them together WITHIN the official clients (kind of like build your own party with group controls). This way the playing field is level with the ability to control multiple characters (within some set limits) becoming a sanctioned play style vs. this "don't ask don't tell, hush hush, wink wink, nudge, nudge, knowhaddimean" philosophy that we currently have.

 

[cazador]

@hungry4knowhow What Draconi "torched" was a drop in the bucket to what was really in UO at the time, those were all little houses. Did any Castles get the "torch"?. IMHO those were lambs that were slaughter to say see what we are doing and honestly those houses could have been put there for that reason. Did anybody really see what was in those houses before they were put under the torch?

I can assure you those houses torched were houses of dupers. They weren't necessarily packed with items. The accounts were banned the houses were torched. He torched a Chessy Luna house back then as well.


....

 

[Merus]

I completely understand what you mean, but Stratics rules about things like that have always been based on the written documentation not just a developer saying something in public. The reason for that is because the TOS will always be more or less the same, while a developer might change their mind about a topic every other week. The rules being based on the official TOS has historically been the most reliable option, especially since the Producer job hasn't always been held by the same person and each producer has different opinions on things.

All that really needs to happen for a website rule to change is for the board of directors to vote on it, but until the wording on the official UO TOS is changed to remove the part about cheats being against the rules of UO, it is unlikely the Stratics rule about that would change.

I hear you, but I think it's time for the board to have a serious discussion on the matter. Even if all those conversations have to have thier own dedicated section to keep them out of places like UHall.

Stratics is a fan site... enforcing rules here which the UO Producer has openly stated will not be enforced in game regardless of what the TOS says just doesn't make sense anymore... at least imo.

 

[DJAd]

I hear you, but I think it's time for the board to have a serious discussion on the matter. Even if all those conversations have to have thier own dedicated section to keep them out of places like UHall.

Stratics is a fan site... enforcing rules here which the UO Producer has openly stated will not be enforced in game regardless of what the TOS says just doesn't make sense anymore... at least imo.

I agree. It's only discussion anyway. People should be aware of these programs and actually understand what they can and can't do. People still think there are players using hacks to cast flamestrike as fast as magic arrow for example.

I completely understand what you mean, but Stratics rules about things like that have always been based on the written documentation not just a developer saying something in public.

The written documentation from EA is no longer there regarding approved programs. Nor is there any documentation about "illegal" ones.

https://help.ea.com/en/article/third-party-programs-approved-for-use-with-uo/

As already mentioned Mesanna has pretty much said multiboxing is ok as long as you can answer a GM. She didnt follow up saying "but you can't use this certain application to do it".

 

[Lord Frodo]

To our Stratics Mods... I think we have had a clear enough answer from our UO Producer that using these 3rd party programs and scripts is acceptable practice in UO so long as they are done attended. Time to lift the restriction on naming and discussing them. We have her on the record that they won't be enforcing any action so long as people are attended.

 

[Lady Storm]

Multiboxing was added by Draconi in answer to players wanting to load more then one copy of UO for 2 accounts or more to be on at one time on 1 computer. This part was sanctioned, but it has spawned cheating player activity in fighting. The advent of linking the accounts with a 3rd party program to mimic the first accounts actions was not antisapated or wanted. This is the illegal part of it. I have heard Mesanna explain this at many meet and greets over the last few years. If a GM catches a player using it at a event or dungeon you will be in trouble... but using the multibox for transferring items, houses, and such actions your free of any trouble.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I completely understand what you mean, but Stratics rules about things like that have always been based on the written documentation not just a developer saying something in public. The reason for that is because the TOS will always be more or less the same, while a developer might change their mind about a topic every other week. The rules being based on the official TOS has historically been the most reliable option, especially since the Producer job hasn't always been held by the same person and each producer has different opinions on things.

All that really needs to happen for a website rule to change is for the board of directors to vote on it, but until the wording on the official UO TOS is changed to remove the part about cheats being against the rules of UO, it is unlikely the Stratics rule about that would change.

#1 It is her words that she typed and #2 she is not just a developer she is the person in charge of UO. This is not a rumor that somebody heard, it was an official Developer Meet and Greet and she was there in her official capacity as the head of UO, how much more written documentation do you need? If you EMail her you will get the same written documentation. Nobody "HEARS" things in UO it is all written and read not HEARD. Cheating in UO is still against the rules in UO and alls Bonnie did is clear up when those rules apply. Cheating is only illegal when you are AFK and is legal if you are at your keyboard weather it be multiboxing, multiclienting or macroing as long as you can answer the GM in 5 seconds you are safe.

Do I want this, hell no. Do I do this, hell no. I like many others play by the rules and yes I would use some of the programs, you know that other UOAssist program that is free and others to help with all the key crunching but I do not think I would go as far as multiboxing.

 

[Lord Frodo]

Multiboxing was added by Draconi in answer to players wanting to load more then one copy of UO for 2 accounts or more to be on at one time on 1 computer. This part was sanctioned, but it has spawned cheating player activity in fighting. The advent of linking the accounts with a 3rd party program to mimic the first accounts actions was not antisapated or wanted. This is the illegal part of it. I have heard Mesanna explain this at many meet and greets over the last few years. If a GM catches a player using it at a event or dungeon you will be in trouble... but using the multibox for transferring items, houses, and such actions your free of any trouble.

MULTICLIENTING was added to UO by Draconi NOT MULTIBOXING. Please use the right words.

 

[Fridgster]

::reads thread::: ::shakes head:: ::starts looking for the wine that other guy is always drinking:: "I know he hides it somewhere in here."

 

[Merus]

Multiboxing was added by Draconi in answer to players wanting to load more then one copy of UO for 2 accounts or more to be on at one time on 1 computer. This part was sanctioned, but it has spawned cheating player activity in fighting. The advent of linking the accounts with a 3rd party program to mimic the first accounts actions was not antisapated or wanted. This is the illegal part of it. I have heard Mesanna explain this at many meet and greets over the last few years. If a GM catches a player using it at a event or dungeon you will be in trouble... but using the multibox for transferring items, houses, and such actions your free of any trouble.

No, multiboxing was not added by Drac, the ability to multiclient was.

 

[Lord Frodo]

I can assure you those houses torched were houses of dupers. They weren't necessarily packed with items. The accounts were banned the houses were torched. He torched a Chessy Luna house back then as well.


....

Those were all little houses that could not hold much and it was stated by UO at the time that they destroyed Trillions of gold. Back then it took 1000 1M checks to make 1P now a days so they destroyed Millions and Millions of 1M checks, right, I got some prime swamp land for sell too.

 

[Nexus]

I hear you, but I think it's time for the board to have a serious discussion on the matter. Even if all those conversations have to have thier own dedicated section to keep them out of places like UHall.

Stratics is a fan site... enforcing rules here which the UO Producer has openly stated will not be enforced in game regardless of what the TOS says just doesn't make sense anymore... at least imo.

We have discussed it at length, several times. Just because the UO Producer isn't willing or capable of enforcing the ToS to curb rampant cheating (The ToS published for UO state it's cheating regardless) in UO, doesn't mean we should endorse this behavior. There's a difference between being unable to correct an issue and actively facilitating making it worse by allowing open discussion on it.

 

[cazador]

Those were all little houses that could not hold much and it was stated by UO at the time that they destroyed Trillions of gold. Back then it took 1000 1M checks to make 1P now a days so they destroyed Millions and Millions of 1M checks, right, I got some prime swamp land for sell too.

Dude..I understand the resentment you have. The fact is back then you could have infinite amount of items in the bank with a bug. I know for a fact they delete trillions of gold with one guy I personally knew. Nevermind the hundreds of orny, inquis gloves hat of the magis he had. And he lived his main account in a 7x7 in trinny swamps..so you're semi right!


....