Bug with house teleporters on Siege (facet rules)

[FrejaSP]

I'm trying to go from a house on the Felucca facet to a house near Luna and get the message: "Murderers aren't allowed here, you are banished!"

Works fine for my blue but not my red char

Now all facets on Siege do have Felucca ruleset so I should be allowed to go there.

 

[Mr X]

Don't worry Freja, it will be fixed in about 3 years. Still waiting on the blessed spellbooks fix. But it should be soon don't worry.

 

[kelmo]

I'm trying to go from a house on the Felucca facet to a house near Luna and get the message: "Murderers aren't allowed here, you are banished!"

Now all facets on Siege do have Felucca ruleset so I should be allowed to go there.

*chuckles* Freja. You slay me... *winks* I wonder how tricky of a fix this will be...

 

[Brucie Kibbutz]

Free bump... devs really should of made this consideration, this was a gross oversight.

 

[kelmo]

Hey! Thanks Brucie. You know there are some (very) preliminary plans to use these tiles to link some of the player run communities. It won't work like this even if Siege could agree on how to put the system together.

 

[shanshu]

Hey! Thanks Brucie. You know there are some (very) preliminary plans to use these tiles to link some of the player run communities. It won't work like this even if Siege could agree on how to put the system together.

Wait, so SP says no to recall but yes to teleporting between houses/lands?

 

[kelmo]

Look. I have no say in this matter. It is what it is. Siege will deal with it the best we can. If we have to have it. it should at least work.

 

[shanshu]

Look. I have no say in this matter. It is what it is. Siege will deal with it the best we can. If we have to have it. it should at least work.

Poor form Kelmo.

You are actually trying to make me believe that SP folks won't actively voice an opinion about something that is contrary to the spirit of SP?

What about blessed samurai helms?

Those were changed due to the outcry of SP.

 

[FrejaSP]

Wait, so SP says no to recall but yes to teleporting between houses/lands?

All my chars can gate so it just spare me alot of regs.
What I like most is, I don't need to have multi piles of same resources in all my houses so it will spare me alot of lockdowns.

It will be a great help for chars without gating as we will be able to make gate houses to access player towns and vendor houses away from town and moongates.

Alot won't play Siege because of no recall, this may help us to get more players.

My target in the wilderness or a dungeon still can't recall away so no big deal, it will only hurt the PK's who only can kill crafters and newbies.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Frankly, this kind of stuff is exactly why Siege Perilous needs to be mothballed. No offense to the people who enjoy the unique ruleset of Siege Perilous, but there are simply not enough people playing there (or ever were) to warrant this continued seperate attention from the DevTeam that causes them to spend time on situations that are unique to Siege Perilous and its sister foreign shard.

They clearly don't have an easy means of setting stuff up so that it can operate one way on production shards and another on Siege Perilous, and really, they've got enough problems to worry about between production shards and the Enhanced client and 2D client bugs, they, quite frankly, should not be spending development time on Siege.

 

[Uvtha]

Frankly, this kind of stuff is exactly why Siege Perilous needs to be mothballed. No offense to the people who enjoy the unique ruleset of Siege Perilous, but there are simply not enough people playing there (or ever were) to warrant this continued seperate attention from the DevTeam that causes them to spend time on situations that are unique to Siege Perilous and its sister foreign shard.

They clearly don't have an easy means of setting stuff up so that it can operate one way on production shards and another on Siege Perilous, and really, they've got enough problems to worry about between production shards and the Enhanced client and 2D client bugs, they, quite frankly, should not be spending development time on Siege.

No see the thing is most of these things were EASY to not include. They just keep forgetting about it.

 

[It Lives]

No see the thing is most of these things were EASY to not include. They just keep forgetting about it.

No kidding, nothing some yellow post it notes would not solve.

1. siege (knuckle heads)
2. fel (no heads)
3. tram(marshmellows)


....wait I know I had a list some where...

 

[RaDian FlGith]

No see the thing is most of these things were EASY to not include. They just keep forgetting about it.

Sure... they were "easy" to include.

You'd also think however, that:
- redeeding deeded items is "easy"
- making items stack is "easy"
- making sure a blessed robe in = a blessed robe out is "easy"
- ensuring a polar bear remains white is "easy"
- making sure deeded items can be placed on gozas and carpets is "easy"
- the list goes on...

I'm not going to go out on any limb and say that anything is necessarily "easy." And those of you on Siege Perilous who somehow think that making sure that everything that goes into the game works on your shard as well is "easy" are fooling yourselves. If all of this were "easy," they'd never have any problems implementing them.

And yeah, I know you'll respond with "Well if the developers only gave us some consideration, instead of purposely forgetting about us."

My response is this: They have enough of a time trying to make sure that everything they do is compatible with and works properly on the standard shards, and CLEARLY they have some issues (though I believe it is further down the chain in QA, not at the Developer level, because frankly, bugs happen) on that "basic" level. Siege Perilous, of course, is an exception to many of the rules, and yet somehow, you think that they should be able to get it right simply because you deem it "easy."

Again, I understand people enjoy the Siege ruleset, but it is a detriment to the development of Ultima Online at this stage of the game. It's time to mothball that ruleset.

 

[Kiwillian]

What is you problem dude? If you don't like siege, don't play it. Something trivial like this is no reason for you to start harping on about how it should be closed down - jeez. Did you get PK'd a bunch here or something?

 

[Chad Sexington]

Poor form Kelmo.

You are actually trying to make me believe that SP folks won't actively voice an opinion about something that is contrary to the spirit of SP?

What about blessed samurai helms?

Those were changed due to the outcry of SP.

The house teleporters can actually be used for something good. Someone already proposed a plan for the different communities to donate teleporters to a common house near a moongate that will lead to all the different player towns. For it to get done, it'll require a lot of different people to put a lot of trust in the single house owner. In the process it'll connect all the various communities even further.

With the teleporters, there's something positive in something negative.

The bunny ears were just bad.

(But nice try.)




edit: Another idea being thrown around. Each town dedicate one house as a "gate house" with each "gate house" having a set of teleporters to each other. In other words: a completely player run (and dependent) gate system with destinations of our choosing. Awesome. Is there anything more in the "spirit of SP" than that?

 

[Kiminality]

What is you problem dude? If you don't like siege, don't play it. Something trivial like this is no reason for you to start harping on about how it should be closed down - jeez. Did you get PK'd a bunch here or something?

If you read his posts, you'll see he's not saying Siege should be shut down "because of the teleporters".
What I get from his posts is that he's saying, in simple terms, that the Siege ruleset is such a big mess of "do x like y" that these things are practically guaranteed to happen.
I know you love your Siege, and I disagree that it should be canned, or anything of the sort, but the way things are is terrible.
What you're getting is effectively hand-me-down content from the production shards (because it's developed primarily for there), which doesn't fit Siege properly. And often enough, there's something that doesn't work right on Siege, or doesn't fit with the "Siege way". Because not only do the devs have to go from concept to developed on production, but they then have to Siegeify it, and the more exceptions they have to take into account, the more they're going to miss.

 

[kelmo]

*cries* I know Kimi... But Siege is all I have left.

 

[FrejaSP]

*cries* I know Kimi... But Siege is all I have left.

Same here, without Siege I had quit UO many years ago

 

[RaDian FlGith]

What is you problem dude? If you don't like siege, don't play it. Something trivial like this is no reason for you to start harping on about how it should be closed down - jeez. Did you get PK'd a bunch here or something?

I know given what I'm saying it sounds perhaps like I'm being an ass about the Siege ruleset. Trust me, that's not the case. No, I personally don't like the ruleset myself -- as a total package -- but it does have a few things I do like. I'd happily (and yeah, it would screw me up big-time, but still...) move to one character per account on production servers. Believe it or not, that was the one thing I really liked about Star Wars Galaxies (that and the unique name server, but I digress).

I'm really just saying that right now, clearly there is something wrong in the development chain at Mythic. They are doing some absolutely wonderful things. Things that really make me smile, and that show that the people in charge of the game DO really care about it.

And about 75% of everything that comes down the channel seems to need a patch/publish to fix. And then sometimes an additional patch/publish to fix. I mean, the situation is so weird that for the first time in 12 years, I can't just leave my radar map open on login. Simple stuff that QA should be testing for is making it through into production -- and remember, it was QA that held up rewards/12th anniversary gifts for at least two weeks as it was. Which makes you wonder what the really glaring, game-breaking bugs were. Again, most of this I find as a fault with QA, not the developers. Bugs happen. But someone should be pointing them out -- particularly the "this isn't functioning as expected" ones -- prior to release to production.

Now, all of this leads up to poor Siege Perilous. It's a very different ruleset. While you and I can armchair program and say, "This should be easy," it very clearly isn't. For whatever reason, it just isn't. And I fully agree, as a programmer, there are things in the game that just make me wonder what's going on, because as a programmer there are several things I see that should be "easy" to implement, and even easier to fix. But I don't know the codebase they're working with. I don't think the DevTeam is incompetent, but they're either overwhelmed, or the UO codebase is reaching "critical mass." When you drop a ruleset into the picture that affects, what, two shards, yeah, you're going to see more problems.

I agree the teleporter issue should have been a "no-brainer." I also don't believe that the DevTeam are ignoring Siege Perilous on purpose. But given the situation with the game, I do feel that making sure stuff works on Siege Perilous, when clearly they're having issues making sure it works on all the rest of the shards first, is an additional consideration that in this stage of development is a detriment.

In a perfect situation, they'd have someone devoted to double-checking stuff for Siege Perilous. Given the situation at Mythic, rolling down from EA, do I believe that's currently likely to happen? No. Which leaves the questions, "How do we ensure that Siege Perilous isn't left in the cold?" or "Is it time to mothball the Siege Perilous ruleset?"

Believe me, I understand -- and completely get -- that this ruleset is what's kept several players around for many years. But at what point do the extra requirements of Siege Perilous become a burden instead of a special featureset?

If these things are quick/easy to fix, then yeah, I hope they get them done. But -- and this isn't just because I want my game experience to function right, but that of a majority of subscribers -- if it's going to take some serious development time to do so, frankly, that time is better spent stabilizing the play experience for the production shards.

I hope this clarifies that I'm not just trying to be an "I hate Siege Perilous" jerk. I'm not. I do have a character there, I just never really got into it. But I get that some people do. That's okay. It's purely about the state of UO development at the moment. Clearly, the people in charge do care about the game, but something's just not going right at the moment.

 

[Essence of Siege]

And about 75% of everything that comes down the channel seems to need a patch/publish to fix. And then sometimes an additional patch/publish to fix.

So by your definition UO should be shut down since they obviously don't even have the resources to support production shards.

And if you think they spend development time on Siege, well come play here on occassion. You'll find they don't. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the major fixes that get done here are coded by someone officially 'off the clock.'

 

[onthefifty]

So by your definition UO should be shut down since they obviously don't even have the resources to support production shards.

And if you think they spend development time on Siege, well come play here on occassion. You'll find they don't. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the major fixes that get done here are coded by someone officially 'off the clock.'

This almost sounds like it should be moved to the rant forum.

keep in mind its a 12 year old game with mainly a core pop. resources devoted to it are not infinite. i think it can be agreed that the support for this game given by the dev's has been better than two year's ago.

freja raises a valid point and has probably already submitted a bug report.

keep on point.

 

[Mook Chessy]

I know given what I'm saying it sounds perhaps like I'm being an ass about the Siege ruleset. Trust me, that's not the case. No, I personally don't like the ruleset myself -- as a total package -- but it does have a few things I do like. I'd happily (and yeah, it would screw me up big-time, but still...) move to one character per account on production servers. Believe it or not, that was the one thing I really liked about Star Wars Galaxies (that and the unique name server, but I digress).

I'm really just saying that right now, clearly there is something wrong in the development chain at Mythic. They are doing some absolutely wonderful things. Things that really make me smile, and that show that the people in charge of the game DO really care about it.

And about 75% of everything that comes down the channel seems to need a patch/publish to fix. And then sometimes an additional patch/publish to fix. I mean, the situation is so weird that for the first time in 12 years, I can't just leave my radar map open on login. Simple stuff that QA should be testing for is making it through into production -- and remember, it was QA that held up rewards/12th anniversary gifts for at least two weeks as it was. Which makes you wonder what the really glaring, game-breaking bugs were. Again, most of this I find as a fault with QA, not the developers. Bugs happen. But someone should be pointing them out -- particularly the "this isn't functioning as expected" ones -- prior to release to production.

Now, all of this leads up to poor Siege Perilous. It's a very different ruleset. While you and I can armchair program and say, "This should be easy," it very clearly isn't. For whatever reason, it just isn't. And I fully agree, as a programmer, there are things in the game that just make me wonder what's going on, because as a programmer there are several things I see that should be "easy" to implement, and even easier to fix. But I don't know the codebase they're working with. I don't think the DevTeam is incompetent, but they're either overwhelmed, or the UO codebase is reaching "critical mass." When you drop a ruleset into the picture that affects, what, two shards, yeah, you're going to see more problems.

I agree the teleporter issue should have been a "no-brainer." I also don't believe that the DevTeam are ignoring Siege Perilous on purpose. But given the situation with the game, I do feel that making sure stuff works on Siege Perilous, when clearly they're having issues making sure it works on all the rest of the shards first, is an additional consideration that in this stage of development is a detriment.

In a perfect situation, they'd have someone devoted to double-checking stuff for Siege Perilous. Given the situation at Mythic, rolling down from EA, do I believe that's currently likely to happen? No. Which leaves the questions, "How do we ensure that Siege Perilous isn't left in the cold?" or "Is it time to mothball the Siege Perilous ruleset?"

Believe me, I understand -- and completely get -- that this ruleset is what's kept several players around for many years. But at what point do the extra requirements of Siege Perilous become a burden instead of a special featureset?

If these things are quick/easy to fix, then yeah, I hope they get them done. But -- and this isn't just because I want my game experience to function right, but that of a majority of subscribers -- if it's going to take some serious development time to do so, frankly, that time is better spent stabilizing the play experience for the production shards.

I hope this clarifies that I'm not just trying to be an "I hate Siege Perilous" jerk. I'm not. I do have a character there, I just never really got into it. But I get that some people do. That's okay. It's purely about the state of UO development at the moment. Clearly, the people in charge do care about the game, but something's just not going right at the moment.

Queen Zen, can you please "out wall" this person!!


JK!

 

[FrejaSP]

Someone clean up this thread for immature anti siege reply.

This thread is about an annoying bug on Siege. If someone want to debat the existent of Siege, do it in an other thread.

As reds can go to all facets on Siege, the teleporters should not refuse to let me go to Malas, Tokuno or Tel Mur if my other teleporter is in a house there.

Someone forgot to tell the teleporters about the Siege ruleset.

 

[Cynth]

In this topic, people make drama over a fix likely as simple as:

if (shardName != "Siege Perilous" && shardName != "Mugen")
{
  do the murder checking code
}

Don't wanna play Siege? Don't play. Just don't start calling for the removal of other player's shards when most issues can be corrected where they arise with simple tweaks of the code as demonstrated.

When EA determines that it's too much work for the players playing there to remain viable, I'm sure they'd take action. Until then, they'll continue supporting the shard. I have no idea why individuals like the guy wasting his life writing a book on why they should pull the plug on the shard feels the need to do so when they know nothing of the internal workings, nothing of the viability of supporting the shard itself and, well, just nothing generally.

I suggest focusing on playing your game and enjoying it, rather than going around calling for the destruction of other people's means of enjoying Ultima. Doing so makes you look quite mean spirited and foolish.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

So by your definition UO should be shut down since they obviously don't even have the resources to support production shards.

All I'm saying is that they clearly are having enough of an issue supporting the production shards... supporting an extraneous ruleset that affects two shards for a minimal amount of players (again, I'm not trying to offend, but it is true) is not something that should be considered over things that are, truly, easy to implement.

And if you think they spend development time on Siege, well come play here on occassion. You'll find they don't. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the major fixes that get done here are coded by someone officially 'off the clock.'

This is my point, really... I don't play Siege. I'm not going to play Siege. However, I'm not trying to say, "Because you play Siege and I don't, it doesn't matter to me." What I'm saying is that they clearly don't have the staff to support the ruleset as it is, and if that's the case, the ruleset really needs to go the way of the dodo.

I mean, clearly, many people are not happy with the limited support you guys already apparently get. Again, in a perfect world, they'd have someone devoted -- at least one person -- to making sure that the "easy" stuff gets translated for Siege. I don't work there, but I'm pretty sure (and so are you) that they don't have such a person.

To be frank, having to properly worry about the Siege ruleset is a distraction.

Now, we can exaggerate this to mean, "They can't even support UO, so shut it down." You and I both know this is not what I'm saying.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

In this topic, people make drama over a fix likely as simple as:

if (shardName != "Siege Perilous" && shardName != "Mugen")
{
  do the murder checking code
}

Don't wanna play Siege? Don't play. Just don't start calling for the removal of other player's shards when most issues can be corrected where they arise with simple tweaks of the code as demonstrated.

If it were truly that simple, do you think it would take them three weeks to not implement it?

When EA determines that it's too much work for the players playing there to remain viable, I'm sure they'd take action. Until then, they'll continue supporting the shard. I have no idea why individuals like the guy wasting his life writing a book on why they should pull the plug on the shard feels the need to do so when they know nothing of the internal workings, nothing of the viability of supporting the shard itself and, well, just nothing generally.

The ability to write a three minute response and have several paragraphs does not make it a waste of my life. I'm sorry you dislike my opinion, but I'm certain you can express it without belittling others. I'm pretty sure I attempted to express mine without saying stuff like, "All Siege Perilous players are jerks." I know that statement isn't true, but wow, you'd be a candidate for it if I thought it was.

I suggest focusing on playing your game and enjoying it, rather than going around calling for the destruction of other people's means of enjoying Ultima. Doing so makes you look quite mean spirited and foolish.

I am focusing on enjoying the game in general. There's this strange arm-chair programming style of idealistic UO programming going around where all fixes are simple, and all fixes must boil down to if/then/else statements that my grandmother (if we were to believe the propaganda) could implement on an old typewriter.

The fact is that clearly these are not "simple" fixes, or they'd get done. A "simple" fix would be one that took five to thirty minutes of coding, at least by any industry definition of the word "simple" that I've ever worked under.

If you don't see that time spent making exceptions to the primary ruleset is development time better spent elsewhere, I'm sorry. But the plain reality is there staring a lot of us in the face. One needs only look at the list of bugs not only from SA's release but that have not been addressed prior to SA; one needs only look at the condition of the Enhanced Client, which has not received a functionality patch in nearly three months now; one needs only look at the general state of affairs in UO where stuff that we all believe to be "simple" is making it through QA and onto production servers in a state that none of us would have released them in.

Again, I understand that you enjoy playing Siege. I understand people enjoy the ruleset. But it is two shards that require extra attention to even make the "simple" stuff work on them. I haven't seen the Siege code, but if it had been properly coded in the first place, these silly little bugs for stuff that is based on ruleset wouldn't even exist in the first place, because they'd be calling a routine that on Siege would function differently than on the production servers. It doesn't, which means they have to go in and touch everything they add to make sure it's ruleset independent for Siege and Mugen.

Bleh... I've wasted three more minutes, and wrote another book. I'd better stop before you respond about me wasting my life again.

 

[Cynth]

If it were truly that simple, do you think it would take them three weeks to not implement it?

In all likelihood it is that simple. The reason it takes them awhile to fix things is because the bug must first be recognised, assigned to a coder, fixed, go through QA... etc. The patch roll-out process is likely more complex than the fix itself. You can't just go around tweaking code on live servers without going through the proper release cycle policy and this bug isn't high enough priority to demand an "emergency patch" outside of schedule, I'm guessing, in their eyes.

That's why things take time; not necessarily due to the complexity of the fix itself.

There's this strange arm-chair programming style of idealistic UO programming going around where all fixes are simple, and all fixes must boil down to if/then/else statements that my grandmother (if we were to believe the propaganda) could implement on an old typewriter.

Yeah, conditionals are so overrated. No professional programmer uses those any more, right?

I have no idea why you chose to express your opinion in this topic, since this thread exists merely to bring up a legitimate concern Siege players have with a new item on the realm which, because of a minor coding oversight, is unusable by some. Quite honestly I find it concerning someone would devote as much effort as you have in voicing opinions which were evidently solely designed from the outset to generate a negative response from those playing on the realm you're talking about, while adding nothing of any merit to the topic at hand.

Take care.

 

[FrejaSP]

If it were truly that simple, do you think it would take them three weeks to not implement it?

They can't fix it if they don't know there is a bug. Many Devs don't know the Siege code to well so we have to help them.

I made this post to get a problem solved, not to here alot of trash from players who of some reason dislike Siege

 

[kelmo]

.
This is my point, really... I don't play Siege. I'm not going to play Siege. However, I'm not trying to say, "Because you play Siege and I don't, it doesn't matter to me." What I'm saying is that they clearly don't have the staff to support the ruleset as it is, and if that's the case, the ruleset really needs to go the way of the dodo.

wow...

 

[RaDian FlGith]

In all likelihood it is that simple.

No, not in all likelihood. Potentially, I'll agree, it may be that easy to fix. However, while the potential does exist, given the numerous posts from developers in the past on items that people have thought were "simple" fixes that we've learned were not simple fixes, I'm unwilling to simply label everything as "simple fixes."

The reason it takes them awhile to fix things is because the bug must first be recognised, assigned to a coder, fixed, go through QA... etc. The patch roll-out process is likely more complex than the fix itself. You can't just go around tweaking code on live servers without going through the proper release cycle policy and this bug isn't high enough priority to demand an "emergency patch" outside of schedule, I'm guessing, in their eyes.

I agree that it should go through the channels... and certainly I think that if this issues is a simple fix, it should be addressed not only in a timely manner, but as quickly as an emergency publish, because while it only affects two shards, if it is a quick, simple fix, it's also a bug that is causing issue on those two shards.

My point is not that the bugs shouldn't be fixed if it's a quick and easy fix. My point is that if it is not a quick and easy fix that there is a plethora of things involving the remainder of the live shards as well as the Enhanced Client that should be attracting the attention of the developers.

That's why things take time; not necessarily due to the complexity of the fix itself.

Perhaps, perhaps not. You can't simply whiddle this all down to "they're mostly all easy fixes, it's just taking time because of the rest of the programming process."

Yeah, conditionals are so overrated. No professional programmer uses those any more, right?

Is there some particular reason everything has to be so absolute with you. Obviously selections are used in everyday programming, I mean, really, you've got your choice of loops, selections, and assignments, and *whirls finger* voila, you're a programmer. If everything were as "simple" as if/then/else, we'd all be programmers, yes?

I have no idea why you chose to express your opinion in this topic, since this thread exists merely to bring up a legitimate concern Siege players have with a new item on the realm which, because of a minor coding oversight, is unusable by some.

Well then pay attention, because I haven't exactly been hiding the reason for expressing my opinion:

1) I don't think that what you're defining as an "easy fix" is, in fact, an "easy fix."
2) If it IS an easy fix, as I've said before in the thread, they SHOULD go ahead and fix it, but:
3) If it is NOT an easy fix, there are issues plaguing a lot more players, not to mention the incomplete Enhanced Client that should ALL be receiving developer attention LONG before anything that is affecting the Siege Perilous ruleset.

I get and understand that there's a handful of subscribers that enjoy the Siege ruleset, and while that's great and all, IF these fixes are not quick and easy, it is my opinion that development time is better spent on issues that affect the vast majority of the playerbase than putting development time into the Siege ruleset. Sorry... As I've said before, if they have a developer set aside for Siege, that's great, but they don't (clearly), and if that's the case, then they need to remain focussed on production and the EC (UNLESS it's a quick, easy fix as asserted by you and others).

Quite honestly I find it concerning someone would devote as much effort as you have in voicing opinions which were evidently solely designed from the outset to generate a negative response from those playing on the realm you're talking about, while adding nothing of any merit to the topic at hand.

And I find it concerning that publishes like the last one happened at all... it was replete with bugs that the QA process should have stomped out before they ever hit a live server. They clearly have enough on their plates at Mythic without having to worry about setting special conditions for two shards.

If you don't like my opinion, that's fine. If it concerns you that I'm expressing it, that's fine too. But there are valid reasons for expressing it, and while you think I'm doing it to "generate a negative response from those playing on the realm," you're wrong. I'm expressing the opinion because frankly, I want to see UO return to being more successful than it is. I'm expressing the opinion because I want to see the EC succeed. I'm expressing the opinion because while I love what has come from SA, it's still got a great many issues plaguing it that need to be addressed. And presently, I don't believe they can do justice to all of this if they continue to be distracted by the Siege ruleset.

If you can't see that my concerns aren't being expressed to be negative to Siege specifically, but rather, that I want the remainder of the UO community to get prime focus (unless the fixes ARE quick and easy), then fine, choose not to see it that way. You will frame your opinion of my opinion any way you like it.

Why did I express it here? Because this thread is a prime example of the issue with "Siegeifying" things for your particular ruleset. Lots of people on Siege seem to think the DevTeam are either purposely forgetting them, or that things that you have deemed "easy" are simply not being done. My contention is that the DevTeam is NOT purposely forgetting you guys, and that these "simple" fixes or "simple" implementations are NOT as simple as you folks would like to think. And if my contentions are correct, then my belief is that the focus needs to remain on stabilizing UO and the EC for the majority populous of UO, not in tweaking things for a secondary environment.

Where would you like me to express that opinion? In a thread in UHall entitled, "Please Developers, Don't Spend Any Time on Siege Perilous!" Would that be better than actually discussing the situations here in the thread? Personally, I think that would be far more negative than anything I've said in here.

They can't fix it if they don't know there is a bug. Many Devs don't know the Siege code to well so we have to help them.

I agree with you there. All I'm saying is that if it's not a quick and simple fix -- and frankly, Developer infamiliarity with Siege code is going to play into that as well -- then it really should be left until after more pressing issues affecting a much larger portion of the playerbase are addressed first.

I made this post to get a problem solved, not to here alot of trash from players who of some reason dislike Siege

I don't dislike Siege, and if you feel my opinion is trash, that's fine. I responded to your post simply because I believe the developers should be focussing on larger issues than things affecting two low population shards with an alternate ruleset, IF those fixes would take more than a modicum of development time to implement.

Frankly, this "you hate Siege because you don't want them to fix it for us" mentality that Siegers adopt whenever anyone has an opinion at all about the Siege Perilous ruleset is getting tired.

And to be equally frank, they should never have set up the Siege Perilous ruleset the way that they did. Things like this should have been set up so that ruleset exceptions are all handled by the same checking code. They shouldn't have to tweak individual items to work properly, it should be a base function of the code.

And you know what, Freja? You might want to sit down for this one... IF they can get UO back on track by fixing the large issues with the game at the moment, by finishing up SA (you know, there's still areas we don't even have access to, right?), and by bringing the EC up to speed, then I FULLY support them AT THAT POINT sitting down and re-exploring the Siege Perilous ruleset, modifying the code so that implementing things is easier, and perhaps even adding in some new stuff that is unique to the ruleset.

But let's be equally honest... Given the amount of development time that Siege has gotten since implementation now through this very day, do you honestly -- your opinion about the Siege ruleset aside -- feel that you've gotten a fair shake in development time? And do you see that improving in the near future, much less the long-term future? Personally, I don't, which is why I think if they're not going to be devoting development time to you (and shouldn't unless mainstream play is stable), then perhaps it's time they consider ending the ruleset. It's NOT because I think Siege was a bad idea, it's simply and truly because I don't think they have the staff to support it anymore, and rather than keep it limping along on bandages, someone might actually want to make a tough decision. Yes, I understand that would suck for the Siegers, but understand that distracting the developers with exceptions to the mainstream rules is not good for the core of UO development and that sucks for a lot more people.

wow...

It's nothing I haven't already said, Kelmo, it was simply reduced to a concise statement.

Do you really believe it's better to keep Siege limping along with limited development attention? Aren't there still a great many issues plaguing the ruleset that have been there so long you guys have simply become "used to them?" Is that truly what you believe should be done to handle Siege?

And while I understand that you'd love to see more development time for Siege, looking at the state of things with the core game, do you really think their time is best spent making sure that the Siege ruleset is running properly?

I mean, sure, if EA wants to foot the bill for a Siege-only developer who goes in and fixes it and such, that's great... but are there enough Siege players to warrant this?

 

[FrejaSP]

We are not as few as you think and Siege do have the best ruleset.
Our economy is not ruined
We do not have tram vs fel hate or blue vs red hate on Siege, our comunity is not splitted up, we stand together, that be about getting fix to our shard or kicking scammers and other trash off the shard.

How can we have the most active forum if our shard is dead?
No other shard forum get even close to our activitet and we do have players joining Siege, telling their own shard is dead.

Forum	Threads	Posts 
UHall	14,620	271,496 
Siege	14,611	152,453

 

[RaDian FlGith]

We are not as few as you think and Siege do have the best ruleset.

In your opinion. I guarantee that the majority of the people who prefer the Trammel ruleset (who are also the majority of UO's subscribers) disagree with you.

Our economy is not ruined

It depends on what qualifies as a ruined economy; most people get along just fine in the economies of the other shards.

We do not have tram vs fel hate or blue vs red hate on Siege,

This is, quite frankly, because the people who don't enjoy an all Felucca ruleset just simply don't play there.

our comunity is not splitted up, we stand together,

That's not always the case, and you know it.

that be about getting fix to our shard or kicking scammers and other trash off the shard.

It would be nice to see all of that happen on all shards, not just Siege Perilous.

How can we have the most active forum if our shard is dead?

The implication is not that your shard is inactive. Surely you have a core group of very active players. However, that does not mean that suddenly Siege Perilous is the most active shard in the game. Additionally, having the most active Stratics shard forum -- no offense to those who host Stratics -- means absolutely nothing. I mean, if you used indicators like that, then Blizzard's probably about to be bought by EA because there's less than 1,000 threads and about 5,000 posts on the Warcraft Forums. I happen to know Great Lakes is an active shard -- a lot more active than Siege Perilous -- and yet, it doesn't have 1/10th the threads and posts that you all on Siege Perilous have.

The answer to this "mystery" is simple... Siege Perilous players tend to use the Stratics Siege Perilous forum. Most other shards go elsewhere for shard communication, if they go anywhere at all. Keep in mind that these forums aren't even an accurate representation of the whole of the UO playerbase.

No other shard forum get even close to our activitet and we do have players joining Siege, telling their own shard is dead.

Forum	Threads	Posts 
UHall	14,620	271,496 
Siege	14,611	152,453

Curious. So, if players of Siege Perilous are telling other players of Siege Perilous that the shard is dead, is that a myth? Or is it their opinion that at the hour they play, the shard is, in fact, "dead?"

Look, we can debate the finer points all day long. If your contention is that two shards, Siege Perilous and Mugen, are worth the development effort when the rest of the game is in the state that it is, I'd have to strongly disagree with you.

I mean, not to offend, but your contention that Siege has the best ruleset is, at best, your opinion. Understand that at the core of your ruleset is the same core freedom for players to do as they please that caused the creation of Trammel in the first place. And if the Siege ruleset were as good as you believe that it is, those who are looking for the free-range days of old (aka: The Classic Server people) would have already flocked to Siege and Mugen like there was no tomorrow and they'd be opening up new Siege ruleset servers.

You and I both know that this is does not reflect the true state of the Siege ruleset, nor of the playerbase of Siege perilous. Is Siege more active than say Legends or Origin? Possibly. I'd even go out on a limb and say probably. So why am I not saying, "Shut down Legends! Mothball Origin!"? Because they operate on the same ruleset that all of the other production shards operate on. Of 27 production shards, 2 of them operate on the Siege Perilous ruleset.

Look... back to the point I've been trying to make: Are you happy with how Siege Perilous development has happened over the past six months? The past year? The past two years? The past five years?

Clearly, the DevTeam now is not the size it was in UO's heyday. With everything going on (four years plus on the KR and Enhanced Clients alone) with clients, expansions, bug fixes, and so forth, I would say that Siege has not received a lot of attention. Could it use it? Certainly. Should it receive it to the detriment of the remainder of the game (standard rules, client programming, and content)? No.

 

[Heartseeker]

We are not as few as you think and Siege do have the best ruleset.
Our economy is not ruined
We do not have tram vs fel hate or blue vs red hate on Siege, our comunity is not splitted up, we stand together, that be about getting fix to our shard or kicking scammers and other trash off the shard.

How can we have the most active forum if our shard is dead?
No other shard forum get even close to our activitet and we do have players joining Siege, telling their own shard is dead.

Forum	Threads	Posts 
UHall	14,620	271,496 
Siege	14,611	152,453

Probably because you've posted almost 10,000 times.

 

[FrejaSP]

I don't care about other shards as I don't play them, to me they are a total different game.

I care about my shard and the money we pay to EA. Yes I could wish more dev time for Siege but do not demand it.

I do feel we had been getting faster bug fix the last year and I'm very happy for that.

I would love to have one dev delegated to Siege, one with a passion for Siege. He/she should use a part of his time speciel for Siege, maybe 10% to fix bugs and to make sure a new patch will not hurt Siege.

If EA did some reseach in what stop players who dislike trammel from playing Siege, it could help our shard alot.

 

[FrejaSP]

Probably because you've posted almost 10,000 times.

I had been here for very long and I have a passion for UO
And you know, females speak alot
Also I'm sure I do half of my posting on U.Hall

 

[Chad Sexington]

I mean, not to offend, but your contention that Siege has the best ruleset is, at best, your opinion. Understand that at the core of your ruleset is the same core freedom for players to do as they please that caused the creation of Trammel in the first place. And if the Siege ruleset were as good as you believe that it is, those who are looking for the free-range days of old (aka: The Classic Server people) would have already flocked to Siege and Mugen like there was no tomorrow and they'd be opening up new Siege ruleset servers.

Just want to jump in on this point because it gets brought up a lot and I disagree.

For over four years now I've either played exclusively in felucca (except to bank) on a production shard or on Siege. I can tell you that Siege easily has over 10x as many players online at any one time. Yes, I'm sure the Trammel side of things is as busy as ever, but for over four years I never saw that side. I would argue that Siege has by far, the most active feluccan community across all shards. So really, people who enjoy felucca did flock to Siege. Siege is like a metropolis compared to what I was used to playing with.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

I don't care about other shards as I don't play them, to me they are a total different game.

I care about my shard and the money we pay to EA. Yes I could wish more dev time for Siege but do not demand it.

Believe me, I understand that completely. They definitely are, at least at the core, two entirely different game environments. And certainly you should stand for the game experience that you enjoy. I'm honestly not trying to belittle Siege in any way here.

I do feel we had been getting faster bug fix the last year and I'm very happy for that.

I'm glad to hear that then, and I hope that continues to be the case, as long as they can do so without delaying fixes and development necessary for the rest of the game.

I would love to have one dev delegated to Siege, one with a passion for Siege. He/she should use a part of his time speciel for Siege, maybe 10% to fix bugs and to make sure a new patch will not hurt Siege.

Believe me, as long as it's cost effective (meaning that there's enough people playing on and paying for the Siege ruleset that it would be viable for a Developer to be hired and assigned to do so.

If EA did some reseach in what stop players who dislike trammel from playing Siege, it could help our shard alot.

It could, but I suspect -- on a hunch, not necessarily empirical data -- that no one would like the answer. If there were an easy way to draw those players back by altering the Siege ruleset in a manner that would (1) encourage new players and (2) not destroy the ruleset beyond what its current players have come to accept as a playstyle, I'd stand behind it and support it. In my honest belief, that solution probably does not exist... but we can hope.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Just want to jump in on this point because it gets brought up a lot and I disagree.

For over four years now I've either played exclusively in felucca (except to bank) on a production shard or on Siege. I can tell you that Siege easily has over 10x as many players online at any one time. Yes, I'm sure the Trammel side of things is as busy as ever, but for over four years I never saw that side. I would argue that Siege has by far, the most active feluccan community across all shards. So really, people who enjoy felucca did flock to Siege. Siege is like a metropolis compared to what I was used to playing with.

Okay, if we're talking Siege population vs. the average Feluccan population, you'll have no problem convincing me that Siege is more active. Without any data in front of me, I will 100% concur with that assessment. I completely and totally subscribe to that theory.

Here's my issue...

The Developers (aside from 2 new champ spawns) aren't really developing for Felucca either, and there's not going to be a magic bullet (in my opinion... though I am curious as to what this secret announcement Calvin Crowner alluded to about the Wild West is all about) that will bring players back into Felucca.

This is probably part of the same issue with why Siege/Mugen don't see huge jumps in numbers. There's really no way to make someone who enjoys a consensual PVP environment to suddenly say, "Sign me up for non-con." EVEN in games like WoW where the only thing you lose is a few minutes getting back to your body.

However, the people who DO like the Feluccan ruleset and liked it for the challenge, those are the ones who went to Siege. I would wager that pre-Trammel, there were basically three populations:

1) Those who wanted nothing more than to PvM and who were terrorized by either the idea of PvP or who got PKed a few times and gave up on PvP.

2) Those who enjoyed the challenge of PvP and even took up the role of anti-PK to provide protection for the non-PvPers as well as to provide challenge to the PKs (or those who truly PKed hoping for a challenge).

3) Those who PKed because it's a power trip and as long as they had easy targets, there was something for them to do.

Group 1 went to Trammel.
Group 2 either stayed on production shards or went to Siege/Mugen.
Group 3 either continues to pray on what it can on production shards (quite frequently using "enhancement" programs to accomplish these goals), or has quit playing (and often runs around asking for classic shards).

Sadly, of those three groups, I firmly believe group 2 was the smallest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither against PvP nor against Feluccan rulesets. I still look back at 1998/99, pre-Trammel as some of the most fun that I've ever had in the game, and I was part of group 2. But I chose to remain on Great Lakes because there are a lot of things on Siege Perilous that artificially force people to work together, and in my own opinion, they're not for me. That's not to say no one enjoys them, just that I don't enjoy them.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion... truly, I hope that Siege can benefit from improvements to the game, and that they can pull this all together. It's just my fear that all kinds of little distractions are what's bogging down major strides such as the Enhanced Client. I don't want to get into a huge discussion about that particularly, but in order for UO to survive another 10, 15 years, the 2D client must eventually have an expiration date on it (or at least have something in place of a decent enough quality that it can attract new players or encourage old players to return).

 

[FrejaSP]

If there were an easy way to draw those players back by altering the Siege ruleset in a manner that would (1) encourage new players and (2) not destroy the ruleset beyond what its current players have come to accept as a playstyle, I'd stand behind it and support it. In my honest belief, that solution probably does not exist... but we can hope.

Don't be so sure about that and it's not very hard to find solutions. Some are already done.

Lets take a look at the old Siege rules and see what could be done.

Siege rules 1999
1. No stat loss - All shards have that now so this do not draw players to Siege now. Maybe we need to allow murderes to deal with town npc's and make players who attack a red or loot a red body grey to all reds.

2. No recall - This keep alot away but the new crystal portals and house teleporters will be a great help without being abused in PvP. It do allow us to make public "gate" houses with a crystal portal and maybe teleporters to player towns (when we can get enough teleporters for it) It will even allow us to ban trouble makers from this houses, that could be knowen scammers and exploiters.

3. No gating in and out of of dungeon. - This still works and I feel it should stay. The return of the bag of sending do help here and a gate house near dungeons exits could help too.

4. Only one char on an account - This one need to go, allow us 7 chars may be to much but at least 2 if we do not have activated "7 chars" on our account and 3 if we do have 7 chars on normal shards. Can't be that hard to code

5. Red and grey can't kick/ban from houses. - This special rule was lost with costumizing houses. I would like it back in a new version but not sure it's possible. Also on Siege the color of a player should not be used to of the system to choose if a players is good or evil.

6. Red and grey will clean the ban list in houses, they are friend of, when they use the door. - This one was lost too with public houses.

7. NPC vendors take 3X the price for their wares. I see no reason to keep this, sure they may sell cheap tools but GM made tools is much better. Cheaper regs would make it a little less hard for young casters.

8. NPC won't buy your wares - This one should stay but I would love to be able to set up my vendor to buy wares from players.
I could then give my vendor who sell nature dyes a list of what I need, could be:
50 max, white seed, type all, 20k each
200 max, vials of venom, 2000gp each
This should work on all shards but would help Siege alot

9 Player vendors take 3X fee for working - This need to go, there is no reason to keep it.

10. The murderer title is gone for good. - is gone on all shards so this do not draw players to Siege. Now give us a bone, lets be able to cut up bodies again and mount heads on like with some orc and monster heads and let them keep the name of the player.
Make Siege a mature shard and allow parents to disallow Siege on the shard list when they add credit card info or add gametimecodes.

11. No bounty system - This are gone from all shards but letting us cut up bodies would allow players to put a bounty on a player and pay for his head.

12. Guards at the houses is peacefull, they do not attack reds.
Not sure we ever did see this house guards implemented.

13. RoT, Rate over Time skill gain for non resourse using skills. - This had made many stay away from Siege but it had been tweaked several times and it's not a big problem now. RoT do help more than it hurt as we like new chars to crawl before they can walk or with other words to learn to die before they can kill.

14. No Trammel - We love this one and no trammel code on Siege do make alot start here but sadly not all stay. It's not dying that make them quit but trouble getting around, only one char slot and no house until they are ready to give up a house on normal shard. A small refreshed house could help, max 7x7 and need to be refreshed once each 10 days.

15. Young accounts can't see Siege on the shard list - This one really is a problem and need to go. Having a char on Siege should not effect young status on normal shards as it is 2 different games. A new made account should see Siege on the list but with a warning when they try to make a char telling them about the rules on Siege. The char should start without young protection on Siege.

As you see, it's not impossible, lets start with # 1, 4, 7, 9 and 15. # 10, 11 and 14 can come when the first changes pay off for more dev time.
# 2, 3 and 13 are less of a pain now
The idea for # 8 could help all shards.

 

[QueenZen]

Queen Zen, can you please "out wall" this person!!


JK!

*sigh* Even my walls of texts can not surpass his !



I am glad ye mentioned the bug with the 12th year vet rewards, and how they do not work on Siege Freja. I may have to reconsider claiming the teleporters, on my own 12 yr. accts. on Siege then.

Only cure atm I can think of is that they would only work for BLUES on Siege or... will only work for those whom have homes in the original old world lands on Siege, anything past those lands then, the 12th year vet reward of teleporters will not work.

Guess that shoots down options to connect player run towns on Siege, till or if they maybe can fix this issue for their EA UO 12 yr. customers on Siege.

 

[QueenZen]

I mean, sure, if EA wants to foot the bill for a Siege-only developer who goes in and fixes it and such, that's great... but are there enough Siege players to warrant this?

I am not sure on the numbers. But I have worked in customer service for years of my life. I was always told if 1% of my customers were not satisfied, that 1% may tell 99% of their dissatisfaction, which may or could end up with a larger % of customers leaving to go shop somewhere else.

No one wishes to loose their customer base ...even the smallest percentage of it. Siege is for EA UO one of the LAST shards some of their absolute oldest paying customers may try before they exit the EA UO door for forever.

That is oft something they too need to remember despite how hard or simple it may be to try to enable even ONE of their own workers to remember Siege may be their last place to collect money from perhaps their oldest loyalist customers that yeh just happen to LIKE Siege despite it's smaller customer base. One would hope EA would like to keep getting the Siege customers' money monthly even if it is not huge $$ it is still earning them something.

One would hope that they would wish to KEEP even 10% or less of their income coming in to them or to try to fix issues as they come up for their customer base, that may be unique to Siege only.

 

[FrejaSP]

The Developers (aside from 2 new champ spawns) aren't really developing for Felucca either, and there's not going to be a magic bullet (in my opinion... though I am curious as to what this secret announcement Calvin Crowner alluded to about the Wild West is all about) that will bring players back into Felucca.

Problem is, only allow reds on limit places make this places very hard to access for non PvP'ers or weaker PvP'ers.
On Siege all facets are with Fel code so it's easy to find peaceful places without reds or only a few roaming reds.
I too look forward to see what Calvin Crowner speak about.

This is probably part of the same issue with why Siege/Mugen don't see huge jumps in numbers. There's really no way to make someone who enjoys a consensual PVP environment to suddenly say, "Sign me up for non-con." EVEN in games like WoW where the only thing you lose is a few minutes getting back to your body.

Here you are misunderstanding something. No need to try to make the all love non-con PvP. Let the Trammel minded players have their game in peace but open up UO for the ones who loved UO's wild west style year 1997-1998.

This players are in other games now, we need to draw them home to UO with makeing a new Wild West for them without taking the game away from the trammel minded players.

However, the people who DO like the Feluccan ruleset and liked it for the challenge, those are the ones who went to Siege. I would wager that pre-Trammel, there were basically three populations:

Alot do have a char on Siege but to many gave up

1) Those who wanted nothing more than to PvM and who were terrorized by either the idea of PvP or who got PKed a few times and gave up on PvP.

We have alot of them on Siege, many of our shop owners do not PvP and many of out PvM'ers do not try to fight back. Some of them found out, dying a few times a month is not game stopping and reds can be great customers.

2) Those who enjoyed the challenge of PvP and even took up the role of anti-PK to provide protection for the non-PvPers as well as to provide challenge to the PKs (or those who truly PKed hoping for a challenge).

Something killed this group, even on Siege. We do have a lot blue PK's but they are more noto PK's (Killing everything that won't make them red), they are not filling the role as Police, and colores do not tell anything about a players honor.

3) Those who PKed because it's a power trip and as long as they had easy targets, there was something for them to do.

They won't survive as red on Siege, they will die more than they kill. On Siege, they can't hide in Trammel zone when to few to group up in a gank or hide their blue in Trammel zone.

Group 1 went to Trammel.

Some of them did, and that's fine

Group 2 either stayed on production shards or went to Siege/Mugen.

No most of them play other games now, they gave up UO.

Group 3 either continues to pray on what it can on production shards (quite frequently using "enhancement" programs to accomplish these goals), or has quit playing (and often runs around asking for classic shards).

I don't agree with your defination of group 3 as you forget the powerful killers who will kill everything that moves. Most of them quit long ago, Stat loss killed alot of them and the choice between stupid Siege rules or living in a reservat for reds killed the rest and made them go to other games but yes, they still miss UO and dream about coming back. Alot money for EA if they let them back.
All 3 groups do have there share of 3 part prg users and scripters!

Sadly, of those three groups, I firmly believe group 2 was the smallest.

Special on normal shards, there is to little reason to group up to depend of each others. The game lost something important

Don't get me wrong, I'm neither against PvP nor against Feluccan rulesets. I still look back at 1998/99, pre-Trammel as some of the most fun that I've ever had in the game, and I was part of group 2.

Now the question is, was you a noto PK or did you try to make player justice = killing the bad ones including blue scammers and scrifters? many in group 2 was red as not all bad guys are blue

But I chose to remain on Great Lakes because there are a lot of things on Siege Perilous that artificially force people to work together, and in my own opinion, they're not for me. That's not to say no one enjoys them, just that I don't enjoy them.

Hmm, I mostly run alone both on my blue and my red chars. Maybe you should give it a new try but if you like your shard, all is fine and no reason to leave.

At any rate, thanks for the discussion... truly, I hope that Siege can benefit from improvements to the game, and that they can pull this all together. It's just my fear that all kinds of little distractions are what's bogging down major strides such as the Enhanced Client. I don't want to get into a huge discussion about that particularly, but in order for UO to survive another 10, 15 years, the 2D client must eventually have an expiration date on it (or at least have something in place of a decent enough quality that it can attract new players or encourage old players to return).

Yes lets keep that debat out of this thread.

 

[Spree]

Maybe all they need to do it put a post-it on the devs monitor. Remember add Siege code to item. If shard is Siege then......

 

[RaDian FlGith]

Problem is, only allow reds on limit places make this places very hard to access for non PvP'ers or weaker PvP'ers.
On Siege all facets are with Fel code so it's easy to find peaceful places without reds or only a few roaming reds.
I too look forward to see what Calvin Crowner speak about.

Well, it is definitely true that more Feluccan land would lead to more space free of reds... of course, this is also the issue (whether good or bad is up in the air) that unfortunately UO has too much land these days and so it's easy to go places where you never see anyone, ever. I imagine it's probably beneficial on Siege, whereas on production, yeah, it's probably not so good for an MMO.

Here you are misunderstanding something. No need to try to make the all love non-con PvP. Let the Trammel minded players have their game in peace but open up UO for the ones who loved UO's wild west style year 1997-1998.

Well, yeah, if that's a goal we can reach, that would be very acceptable. I just wonder if -- without suddenly removing all of the game items and returning to pre-AoS days (and then pre-Publish 16 for the rest of them) -- there's something that could be done to bring those players back. I did see your list of potential changes above, and I want to wake up a little more before I comment. I will say, they do look to be very well thought ideas, so that's a good thing.

This players are in other games now, we need to draw them home to UO with makeing a new Wild West for them without taking the game away from the trammel minded players.

That's a tough debate there, as, if they're truly enjoying these other games, there's a limit as to what UO can currently offer them. Unfortunately, UO has failed to keep itself modernized in the past 12 years, and that is going to be a factor, regardless of what we call it. I will say that UO still has a customization level that no other game out there seems to possess (SWG was closest, in my opinion), so it does have that as a strong advantage.

Definitely one thing that would have to go though (and I'm unsure how to accomplish this) is the cheat programs -- they affect quality PvP regardless of shard. Some people decide to cheat themselves so that they can compete, but most, I suspect, simply give up. I'm not sure how rampant this issue is on Siege, but it's definitely a factor on production shards. It was definitely a different world for the two weeks following SA's release.

Alot do have a char on Siege but to many gave up

Yeah, that's probably true. I know for me personally, one of the biggest issues was the forced cap on skill gain. I sort of understand wanting to prevent someone from GMing in two days, but, on the other hand, it only prevents people from reaching the "end game" of UO faster, and I'm not certain that particular issue helps anyone. In the end, the fun of UO isn't necessarily making that initial character, but using him after he's gained all of his skills.

Of course, the next question is, would a casual player even notice ROT? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this.

We have alot of them on Siege, many of our shop owners do not PvP and many of out PvM'ers do not try to fight back. Some of them found out, dying a few times a month is not game stopping and reds can be great customers.

Yeah, personally dying doesn't bother me (though I'm not certain I'd be happy if my miner got killed with a load of ore, but then, I'd probably make frequent trips to drop the ore off anyway)... it's part of the game. Certainly, banding together would help stop this, and then it becomes a community issue, which is great... Community is always good.

Something killed this group, even on Siege. We do have a lot blue PK's but they are more noto PK's (Killing everything that won't make them red), they are not filling the role as Police, and colores do not tell anything about a players honor.

They won't survive as red on Siege, they will die more than they kill. On Siege, they can't hide in Trammel zone when to few to group up in a gank or hide their blue in Trammel zone.

Ah, yes... I completely forgot the noto PKs. Yeah, not big fans of them either... and sadly, there's probably no way to make them go away either, except by beating them bloody with a bunch of reds, but I'm not sure that helps. hehe

I don't agree with your defination of group 3 as you forget the powerful killers who will kill everything that moves. Most of them quit long ago, Stat loss killed alot of them and the choice between stupid Siege rules or living in a reservat for reds killed the rest and made them go to other games but yes, they still miss UO and dream about coming back. Alot money for EA if they let them back.

Yeah, stat loss was a stupid idea, particularly given when it was implemented. I get they wanted a way to "punish" murderers for their actions... unfortunately putting it into a freeform game simply drove away people simply because it was such a silly implementation of a "moral code."

All 3 groups do have there share of 3 part prg users and scripters!

Oh, this is true... it's just that you really notice it when you're on the receiving end of it rather than it just going on at a mountain.

Special on normal shards, there is to little reason to group up to depend of each others. The game lost something important

Yeah... and unfortunately, without doing some drastic overhauls of the game's design, there won't be any reason on production shards because as long as they have to work within the realm of 255 max stats (before buff), the monsters they put in will either be weak enough that some template will be able to solo them, or they'll be peerless, which aren't so much about unique AI as "You're going to have to do this pattern for fifteen minutes." And even, then certain templates figure out how to solo something that really should never even be soloable. Of course, this too is for another debate, and yeah, I would say the Siege ruleset -- aside from the occasional groups of Trammel folk who want to get powerscrolls -- is the last frontier on necessary grouping. Well, aside from the dwindling RP community... very hard to RP by yourself. hehe

Now the question is, was you a noto PK or did you try to make player justice = killing the bad ones including blue scammers and scrifters? many in group 2 was red as not all bad guys are blue

I was the guild leader of the largest APK guild Great Lakes ever saw... now, I know I'd be fooling myself to say that none of my members ever noto-PKed or actually outright PKed, because I'm certain it happened (sometimes in a fashion I found out about and dealt with, sometimes in only a suspected fasihion). However, myself, and several core officers and players, were of a mindset that we only attacked if attacked first, or we were responding to one of the old-fashioned dungeon zergs.

If it was a zerg, after we killed off the reds doing the zerging, we returned as much as we could to the recently dead blues who had been steam-rolled. We actually grew our membership a lot because we made the dungeons safer to travel through, and so people who didn't necessarily like to PvP joined in with us to help spread the protection, and of course found that numbers frequently outweigh skill, so they could be of help as long as they followed the queue of someone else.

As for killing people, red or blue, if they were deserving of it, I can attest to doing so. I was never afraid of taking a murder account, and the two characters I've played the most on my main account both have spent a significant (though not irrecoverable) amount of time as red. One particular incident ended badly for a lot of people because I was fighting out near the City of the Dead in T2A -- this was back in the day when someone could loot your kill and not go gray. So this guy was doing nothing but running up and looting other people's kills. LOTS of people were commenting about it, and so I single-handedly decided to take action. I killed him, and then I found a bunch of people who had been complaining about him were attacking me. Boom... I'm dead. To say I was pissed that particular moment would have been an understatement. So I called my guild in, who happily came and killed off every last one of those bastards who had joined in on killing me, and then we kept them down as a lesson. Funny part was, we explained what was going on, why it was going on, and when new people showed up who were innocent of any part of the event, we (maybe not so politely) advised them that they should leave the area (like I say, not politely, but we didn't attack and didn't kill the newcomers). It was an interesting day... there was even a write-up on it here on Stratics on GL news a long, long time ago (I mean, yeah, this was 1998... hehe).

In short, I wanted our guild to use PvP fairly, and for the most part, I and our officers were very successful about that. We, of course, had a few incidents internally, and one of them involved demoting an officer who had noto PKed, and rather than understand he'd done something wrong, he left the guild, formed his own, and then kind of bluntly had to be told, "It's okay to have your own guild, but you don't get to continue to use our facilities if you're not part of our guild..."

Still, these were fun days, and I won't ever say I was one of the best PvPers, because I wasn't. But I was part of one of the best PvP guilds of the day because we knew we had to work together.

Hmm, I mostly run alone both on my blue and my red chars. Maybe you should give it a new try but if you like your shard, all is fine and no reason to leave.

Yeah, I might come over and play for a brief stint to see how it is these days, but unfortunately, standing here with 12 years of investment into Great Lakes, particularly into its RP community over the past 11 years, it's unlikely I'd leave. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy a Feluccan ruleset (even on production, I still enjoy it from time to time)... just, you know, at this point it's the long-running history that keeps me rooted.

 

[FrejaSP]

Thanks for a well writed reply. I like your attitude alot more now in in the start of the thread.
I feel you like me you like me miss alot from early UO and we seem to agree alot.

Well, it is definitely true that more Feluccan land would lead to more space free of reds... of course, this is also the issue (whether good or bad is up in the air) that unfortunately UO has too much land these days and so it's easy to go places where you never see anyone, ever. I imagine it's probably beneficial on Siege, whereas on production, yeah, it's probably not so good for an MMO.

We do have to much land, even on Siege. If I should remove land on Siege, I would start with Malas, this land is a waste as it's only a land for houses, mining and lumbering. It's the most boring place in UO.

That's a tough debate there, as, if they're truly enjoying these other games, there's a limit as to what UO can currently offer them. Unfortunately, UO has failed to keep itself modernized in the past 12 years, and that is going to be a factor, regardless of what we call it. I will say that UO still has a customization level that no other game out there seems to possess (SWG was closest, in my opinion), so it does have that as a strong advantage.

I think unbalance in PvP is one of the reasons we lost so many, PvP is not fun when you have to be in a gank to even try and and now you have to be in Faction and have overpowered factions gear to have a chance to win.
On Siege, where items may be lost when you die, it's a pain to put a new suit together. Most PvP'ers just want to pick up a new suit in their house or buy one from a vendor few screens away.
Before AoS, I sold alot of gm made armor set and weapon, now I have given up.
First I need to get this stupid resist to get close to 5x70
Then I would need to make suits with LRC, suits with MR, suits with.....
It may be easier with imbuing, I still have long way before I get my imbuing to gm and then to legend.
I do believe if the Siege crafters again could make and sell suits to a fair price, maybe 10-20k for a suit, then PvP would be more fun on Siege and the shard would come back to life.
Our problem is, what is good for normal shards are sometimes poison for Siege.

Definitely one thing that would have to go though (and I'm unsure how to accomplish this) is the cheat programs -- they affect quality PvP regardless of shard. Some people decide to cheat themselves so that they can compete, but most, I suspect, simply give up. I'm not sure how rampant this issue is on Siege, but it's definitely a factor on production shards.

We do have cheaters on Siege but they do not get much love from the shard and even cheaters will have to replace their items when they die and they will find themself dye looted more offent than honorable PvP'ers.

Of course, the next question is, would a casual player even notice ROT? Honestly, I don't know the answer to this.

Yes he will and he will hate it. Some may only play lets say sunday and play 12 hours in row. He will only be able to gain for that day.

An other player may play 2 hours a day in 6 days. If he train more than one skill at same time he may success get max gain all 6 days.

They both play 12 hours a week but the first guy would be better off if he could get a weekly cap or have a higher cap if he had not played for some days. WOW have a system where you gain faster if you had not played for a few days.

Yeah, personally dying doesn't bother me (though I'm not certain I'd be happy if my miner got killed with a load of ore, but then, I'd probably make frequent trips to drop the ore off anyway)... it's part of the game. Certainly, banding together would help stop this, and then it becomes a community issue, which is great... Community is always good.

I rarely see miners band together, they changes it a few years ago, so s mining cave will run out of ore if more than 2 miners in it, that's sad, I remember we offen was 5-6 miners in same mining cave.

Ah, yes... I completely forgot the noto PKs. Yeah, not big fans of them either... and sadly, there's probably no way to make them go away either, except by beating them bloody with a bunch of reds, but I'm not sure that helps. hehe

Al the advantages to blue chars we had got the last years had made alot more noto PK's on Siege.
Not sure how to fix it, but many who was red in the past are blue now.

One particular incident ended badly for a lot of people because I was fighting out near the City of the Dead in T2A -- this was back in the day when someone could loot your kill and not go gray. So this guy was doing nothing but running up and looting other people's kills. LOTS of people were commenting about it, and so I single-handedly decided to take action. I killed him, and then I found a bunch of people who had been complaining about him were attacking me. Boom... I'm dead.

The sad thing is, you never know the honor of a blue before you go grey in front of him.

If I am standing on my red char shatting with a group of blue and a red ghost comes to get a rez, I can res the red guy but if I'm standing on my blue in a group of blue and choose to rez a red, I may find my self dead a secong later even when I thought they was nice.

Still, these were fun days, and I won't ever say I was one of the best PvPers, because I wasn't. But I was part of one of the best PvP guilds of the day because we knew we had to work together.

I sure sucks too when it comes to PvP but I love the risk

Yeah, I might come over and play for a brief stint to see how it is these days, but unfortunately, standing here with 12 years of investment into Great Lakes, particularly into its RP community over the past 11 years, it's unlikely I'd leave. It's not that I wouldn't enjoy a Feluccan ruleset (even on production, I still enjoy it from time to time)... just, you know, at this point it's the long-running history that keeps me rooted.

I understand