I agree. Wow has PvP only, PvE only, RP, PvP-RP server types. However Wow doesnt have a retro type shard.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
there is no such thing as a PVP only, or PvE only server, you can do both on any server.
but the reason they don't have a classic is because the game has stayed the same on the basic level.
If you're using WoW as your support, then please explain Molten Core, Nax and the deadmines... Good luck (and I only named three).
That is hilarious!!
I know this is kind of off topic but I am sure what would go a long way for UO in general would be to remove all cheats and dupes and bugs....
I know, I know, that's easier said than done.
Maybe I am living in a dreamland but it sure should be nice to PvP while playing on an even field. I wish they could make it to where no third party programs were available to give someone an advantage.
A classic shard at Pub 15 would be nice, but I wonder if any of the new dupes/cheats/hacks would ruin it?
I know, I know, that's easier said than done.
Maybe I am living in a dreamland but it sure should be nice to PvP while playing on an even field. I wish they could make it to where no third party programs were available to give someone an advantage.
A classic shard at Pub 15 would be nice, but I wonder if any of the new dupes/cheats/hacks would ruin it?
R
Renyard Foxenwyle
Guest
Lol, I used to hide in the Yew tree right outside Kazolas back in the day and talk to people who would walk by. It was funny to see how many people thought it was some sort of Seer event because of the reputation Kazola's had for being one of the Great Lakes seers favorite hangouts. Coolest thing was you didn't have to have any skill at hiding, the Yew was so deep you could just walk into it and not be seen, though allnames would show your name.
I also used to dress up as an NPC noble and walk slowly around WBB asking for an escort, and when someone would run up to me screaming "I will take thee!" I would keep wandering around asking for an escort to cove or some such while they kept spamming I will take thee. Finally I would yell at them to stop following me or I'd have the guards horse whip them.
B
Babble
Guest
You would have to define cheat hacks more closely.
Speedhack ....the developers say there IS A CAP... if this cap does not work then we would need probably a netcode rewrite and that is very very unlikely.
Graphichecks for Stumphack or so could probably be easily done with a checksum or something similar.
The script program I am not sure they can easily detect.
The rest might be features
Speedhack ....the developers say there IS A CAP... if this cap does not work then we would need probably a netcode rewrite and that is very very unlikely.
Graphichecks for Stumphack or so could probably be easily done with a checksum or something similar.
The script program I am not sure they can easily detect.
The rest might be features
I have a fairly high end computer and a 30 Mbps FIOS internet connection yet sometimes people outrun me like i am standing still.You would have to define cheat hacks more closely.
Speedhack ....the developers say there IS A CAP... if this cap does not work then we would need probably a netcode rewrite and that is very very unlikely.
Graphichecks for Stumphack or so could probably be easily done with a checksum or something similar.
The script program I am not sure they can easily detect.
The rest might be features
Now i guess it could be lag on my part but it always seems to be the same people i am fighting. so it seems to be a bit more than just a coincidence or lag.
Also there are times when i am around certain people that it gets really really laggy, like they are running a lag script of some kind. again this seems to only happen around certain players.
B
Babble
Guest
The developers say there is a speedcap on the server.
Players say they see speedhacks though.
My guess is though as long as you don't corner a developer, EA insists that their version of speedhacking works (as I guess it does).
I would say that by EA definition speedhacking is not working. You can move at the server cap, but not faster.
Interestingly the emulation developers said their netcode would not allow speedhacks, but then they developed their netcode years later.
But it should be doable.
Players say they see speedhacks though.
My guess is though as long as you don't corner a developer, EA insists that their version of speedhacking works (as I guess it does).
I would say that by EA definition speedhacking is not working. You can move at the server cap, but not faster.
Interestingly the emulation developers said their netcode would not allow speedhacks, but then they developed their netcode years later.
But it should be doable.
Conceptually it is, you move a tile, then you cannot move another tile for x milliseconds. e.g. like the bushido timer
However it is not that simple because internet traffic is bursty, so you would need a movement queue, so when x milliseconds is up you grab the next movement command from the queue. So no more speedhacking cause the fastest you can move is 1 tile every x milliseconds.
Weird how most PvPers use the famous speedhack program. If it didn't work you think they would use it?
I personally have never used it, so I cant say for sure one way or another. my only experience is from word of mouth and also from seeing them hugely outrun me in tests.
I personally have never used it, so I cant say for sure one way or another. my only experience is from word of mouth and also from seeing them hugely outrun me in tests.
Yeah, a checksum, and if it fails, automatically download a different mul that replaces all tiles with trees, lol.You would have to define cheat hacks more closely.
Speedhack ....the developers say there IS A CAP... if this cap does not work then we would need probably a netcode rewrite and that is very very unlikely.
Graphichecks for Stumphack or so could probably be easily done with a checksum or something similar.
The script program I am not sure they can easily detect.
The rest might be features
E
Evlar
Guest
Derium for President!
I just hate when people bring WoW into it, you ask them about it... and they ignore your questions!Derium for President!
I understand they admitted defeat. but still, why bring it up if you're not willing to talk about it.
M
mjolnir131
Guest
I'm kind-of for a Classic shard really. it would keep most of the whiners on one shard and maybe that way they would stop scarring off what few new people we do get in game.
Make the classic shard CC only, drop CC support for the real shards and have UO move forward into the future instead of allowing it to be held back like has been happening
Make the classic shard CC only, drop CC support for the real shards and have UO move forward into the future instead of allowing it to be held back like has been happening
there are a few classic shards out there with 1,000+ people online at all times. I just thin EA should ask a few of the biggest ones, if they will run the server for them. EA gets the $12.99 a month from each person, then pays the owner of the shard like 75% of it. Then people stop complaining about the CC getting all the attention they fear.
^^
You have destroyed me. Oh the agony.
LMAO.
"I agree. Wow has PvP only, PvE only, RP, PvP-RP server types. However Wow doesnt have a retro type shard."
change that to
"I agree. Wow has PvP, PvE, RP, PvP-RP server types. However Wow doesnt have a retro type shard."
You have destroyed me. Oh the agony.
LMAO."I agree. Wow has PvP only, PvE only, RP, PvP-RP server types. However Wow doesnt have a retro type shard."
change that to
"I agree. Wow has PvP, PvE, RP, PvP-RP server types. However Wow doesnt have a retro type shard."
I've noticed one of the biggest arguments from the anti classic shard clan is that they believe we the pro classic shard clan want to relive our glory days. They believe we want to relive the experiences, the adventures and the friends we made pre AoS.
They have a valid point. I can't really argue that in all honesty but what they fail to see is the road beyond the first corner.
I get giddy thinking about all the experiences, adventures and friends yet to come!
I don't want to relive my history. I want to re-write it.
I want new adventures and new friends in a skill based world where a man or woman can test their mettle rather than their suit and jewelery.
And for the life of me I just can't understand all the nay saying. You would think a classic shard was meant as a replacement for the current shards when it fact it would simply be an alternative.
The internet is a mighty big place. There's room for both.
Oh, p.s. Anyone remember when bards could provoke players?
My first or second day in Sosaria I meet a pretty cool fella and we decide to go to the rat camp out toward Yew (if leaving from Brit).
I'm maybe twenty yards outside the city limits when suddenly I start whacking on this guy.
He start's shouting "WTF?!!? Stop It!!" and I'm totally confused yelling "I can't! I don't know why I'm doing this!!!"
Then suddenly this red fella holding a lute steps out from behind a tree laughing his ass off.
That was one of the funniest things I ever experienced even if was at my expense
They have a valid point. I can't really argue that in all honesty but what they fail to see is the road beyond the first corner.
I get giddy thinking about all the experiences, adventures and friends yet to come!
I don't want to relive my history. I want to re-write it.
I want new adventures and new friends in a skill based world where a man or woman can test their mettle rather than their suit and jewelery.
And for the life of me I just can't understand all the nay saying. You would think a classic shard was meant as a replacement for the current shards when it fact it would simply be an alternative.
The internet is a mighty big place. There's room for both.
Oh, p.s. Anyone remember when bards could provoke players?
My first or second day in Sosaria I meet a pretty cool fella and we decide to go to the rat camp out toward Yew (if leaving from Brit).
I'm maybe twenty yards outside the city limits when suddenly I start whacking on this guy.
He start's shouting "WTF?!!? Stop It!!" and I'm totally confused yelling "I can't! I don't know why I'm doing this!!!"
Then suddenly this red fella holding a lute steps out from behind a tree laughing his ass off.
That was one of the funniest things I ever experienced even if was at my expense
E
Extra Value Meal
Guest
Check out the Hakkar server on WoW, it is PvP only, like your green the whole time. Granted there is safe areas equal to say gaurdzones but a lot of the area is nocon pvp. In fact they offer , Normal, RP, and PvP now.
No really worthy of a response but what the heck. I guess if a supremely accurate quarterstaff of vanquishing is exactly the same as a quarterstaff then you would be right.
fyi my main opposition to a Classic shard is the KR client, especially when you can just create any type of no transfer server in 2 weeks, like a PvP only or PvE only server, with as good if not better results, or even a return to brit campaign which costs EA nothing.
btw Siege wants you. So if you want a Classic shard and dont want to play one for free, why arent you playing Seige because atm it is the closest thing to a Classic shard EA has got.
I understand there are PvP servers, I played on one. But what he said was something like "pvp only" "pvm only" I was just saying all servers offer pvp, and all offer pvm (just some are more tilted to PvP, or PvM, none are exclusive). Like each shard on UO has both, a PvP server (fel), and a PvM (tram). But that doesn't mean you can't PvP in tram, nor can't you PvM in fel. I can't remember the exact wording, but it came across as if there was "only" pvp servers (think CS) meaning NO monster hunting allowed.
And my point about Classic WoW is they ARE slowly giving players classic stuff. True there is no classic server on WoW ( as I said, the basics of the game have not changed with the items... till this november). BUT MC, Deadmines, Nax are all examples of players banning together on the wow forums to get classic thing added back into the game, and Blizzard is listening. They are even bringing back Ranked PvP. Remember the High Warlord titles? They went away in BC, but people complained and they went "classic" to an extent and brought the titles back, and now the ratings in november.
So when there was 100+ threads of people complaining about BC, Blizzard listened and promised their next expansion will go back to their roots a lot. So there may be no classic Blizz server, but the ENTIRE GAME is heading back to what it was...
So in my mind, trying to use WoW for the "classic argument" all you're doing is actually supporting a Classic server on UO...
Just confuses me when someone uses something to support their cause, when it actually damages their cause.
sorry for the horrible typing here, eBay auctions are ending
And my point about Classic WoW is they ARE slowly giving players classic stuff. True there is no classic server on WoW ( as I said, the basics of the game have not changed with the items... till this november). BUT MC, Deadmines, Nax are all examples of players banning together on the wow forums to get classic thing added back into the game, and Blizzard is listening. They are even bringing back Ranked PvP. Remember the High Warlord titles? They went away in BC, but people complained and they went "classic" to an extent and brought the titles back, and now the ratings in november.
So when there was 100+ threads of people complaining about BC, Blizzard listened and promised their next expansion will go back to their roots a lot. So there may be no classic Blizz server, but the ENTIRE GAME is heading back to what it was...
So in my mind, trying to use WoW for the "classic argument" all you're doing is actually supporting a Classic server on UO...
Just confuses me when someone uses something to support their cause, when it actually damages their cause.
sorry for the horrible typing here, eBay auctions are ending
R
RollinTheTweed
Guest
Then you sir was no dueler, and need item based UO to compete. You can't mix oil with water, and I watch you guys squirm around in it every day. >.<
E
ElRay
Guest
People like HD2300 will never understand that although items played their role Pre AoS, they were never NEEDED to compete.
E
ElRay
Guest
See my above reply.
You sound angry. Are you angry?
This paragraph is almost gibberish to me.
What's CC?
CC = Classic Client
EC = Enhanced Client
Let me clarify because it seems you left because of cheating.
One of the top 3 classic shard fanbios has posted multiple times 'if you ban all the cheaters, UO will die', including to one of Cal's (the current UO producer) threads on EA's plan for 3rd party program detection. Am I angry? Yes. Punkbuster was shelved because of similar tactics, and UO has gone downhill since then.
btw a skillful mage even in a crap suit will always beat an average player in a uber suit. Also having an excellent suit now is pretty easy and cheap because of imbuing and faction artys.
However the suit is still required, and that's the issue to me.
I would open a 3rd account just to own a house on a classic shard with or without a tram :/
Same here, I actually want to cut down on some open accounts, but can't figure out any of my homes to drop =(
But for a Classic Shard, would so be worth it
E
ElRay
Guest
You were never around back then, that is very obvious, for 1) Ruin weapons were less powerful then GM made weapons (GM weapons usually were the equivalent of Might weapons)
2) Just because you had invulnerable armor, IT didnt mean double whopper with cheese to a macer, (watch it all break)
3) Items didn't have insurance, therefore, a lot of people hardly ran with vanqs,invulnerable armor, they ran with force/power weps and hardening armor etc
Your ignorance is really shining here.
Ohhh, so there is actually a BIG difference, thanks for acknowledging that fact.
Wrong again, see if you played in that era, which you obviously did not, then you would have known that STAT LOSS strongly persuaded most people from becoming red pks in the first place. Permanently losing your skills from stat loss should have never been taken out of this game. Now it is filled with people who clearly have no business being red in the first place.
This is one statement of yours that is likely to be true, although this IS EA, a company that has let UO run down the tubes. So I highly doubt they would use common sense in this regard.
Oh I guarantee EA is missing mine and probably 10's of thousands of accounts.(IMO)
Meh, they can keep close minded, selfish customers such as yourself, seems this game is chock filled with them nowadays (OMG if they made a classic shard, what about resources, what about resources, WHAT ABOUT RESOURCES??!)
E
ElRay
Guest
Anybody with half a brain(not aimed at you specifically), knows that statement is complete and utter garbage, and holds no water. Saying that cheaters are keeping a game alive?
C'mon.
Punkbuster was probably shelved because of costs and ineffectiveness IMO.
I agree with this mostly, although Pre AoS a mage didn't need ANY armor to compete, only regs.
E
ElRay
Guest
Yes that is correct.
I have filled my time with XBOX Live, I like the fact that you get caught cheating ONCE, its game over for you.
Red Dead Redemption anyone?
R
Renyard Foxenwyle
Guest
This is the only part of your post I take issue with. I played from April of 1997 until about 3 months after AoS was released before I quit until just last month. Stat Loss was in my opinion a joke. Even if you did get killed and would get Stat Loss on rez all you had to do was UM all night long while you slept or played your other account and rez once you were down to 4 murder counts. Now if you had a crap ton of Long Terms you might rez and rebuild, but if you had a good group of friends you'd easily build back your combat skills by fighting with them. Yeah Magery and Magic resist were a pain to build back up because of the expense of regs and the plateaus, but if you were willing to accept the risk of running up a ton of counts then you were either going to throw the character away or had gear, regs, and gold set aside to help rebuild on rez.
I was Anti-PK and was red quite a bit because I'd kill people who exploited the system to avoid counts. More then a few times I rezzed with stat loss. It wasn't a problem if you had friends or a good guild. Granted today it would be a pain in the butt for me because now that I'm much older I don't have the time I did back when I was 17 but that's why instead of Stat Loss for PK's I support public humiliation. Think UMing at the WBB but your toon is alive and in a pillory and everyone can see the greatly feared PeeVeePeerXTR3m3 stuck there until his murder counts were completely gone.
I also like Morganna's exile idea of making the anti-virtue dungeons into free for all PK zones where murderers can quickly work off counts....if they survive. My only problem with that is working out ways for the PK's to reequip in the dungeons when they die or it'll just become a game of shoot the fish in the barrel, though I'm sure some would say it's poetic justice to those who prey on crafters and noobs.
E
Extra Value Meal
Guest
I believe Punkbuster was shelved because a rather large majority of the players likened the program to malware or some other kind of malicious software scanning their computers. Which of course is just silly as quite a few games on the market support and use the service, even back then.
* America's Army
* Battlefield 2
* Battlefield 2: Modern Combat
* Battlefield 2142
* Battlefield: Bad Company 2
* Battlefield Heroes
* Battlefield Vietnam
* Call of Duty
* Call of Duty 2
* Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
* Call of Duty: World at War
* Crysis
* Crysis Wars
* Doom 3
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
* Far Cry 2
* F.E.A.R.
* F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate
* FIFA Online
* Frontlines: Fuel of War
* Need for Speed: ProStreet
* Need for Speed: Undercover
* Prey
* Quake III Arena
* Quake 4
* Quake Live
* Return to Castle Wolfenstein
* Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix
* Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas
* Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2
* Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
To name a few.
Punkbuster was locked in because the Producer at the time made an official announcement and plus it was already used in tons of EA games. However, basically a ton of people, on an even bigger scale than a couple of weeks ago, just spammed the forums saying we are quitting if EA does it, and UO will die if it goes ahead, and the Producer got spooked and pulled the plug. And the rest is history... many players quit because nothing was done to stop the cheating.
I was always torn about stat loss and I didn't play a red. I always thought that they should change perma stat loss to a week (7 days). This way it discourages people from PKing and doesn't totally destroy their hard work.
Not sure how this would go over, but maybe they should make it to where once you go red you are perma red and can never go blue again. you can still burn off murder counts so you dont incur any type of stat loss but you remain red. this would also discourage the players who only do the 5 kills then burn off play style.
Just thoughts... flame away
E
Evlar
Guest
Given the aim of pro-classic supporters is to have one or two completely separate shards, akin to having Siege separate, I maintain that the core reason there's people so opposed (anti-classic) to the idea of a classic shard, falls mainly under the following reasons:
· Fear of more development resources being spent on creating/maintaining classic servers, as opposed to production servers.
· Fear of loss of players from already dwindling numbers on lower population production servers.
· Fear that it could be the death-knell for Siege ruleset servers, mainly from Siege players. Misconception from non-Siege players being that Siege is just about PvP only and nothing else.
· Simple selfishness or self-interest. "Sod everyone else" attitude.
· People who didn't play in what's considered the "classic" UO era (pre-Trammel/Pre-AoS), who don't know any different, but follow the opinion in lemming fashion of those who are anti-classic.
· Those who abhor any form of competitiveness that results in "pixel death", caused by another player. Also known as PvP. Therefore, they're predisposed to be against any aspect of UO which features PvP, even though as currently, they have the choice not to participate.
Now of all those points, the one's I most understand and am concern appreciative of, is devotion of resources/production time, plus population implications.
I do believe that a "classic" option will attract the interest of current players from some of the production shards, but I don't believe this will be any different to players (like myself over the years), who don't just play on the one shard. Therefore I doubt there will be a mass exodus of players from production shards, as some people would suggest. As far as population of production shards goes, I think it will be entirely negligible in impact.
I'm afraid that unless Siege gets the attention that the majority of its player-base has been requesting for a long time, then "classic" shards may pull a portion of its players away. If Siege does get the fixes/changes the players seem to want there, then just as with the production shards, any "classic" impact should only be negligible. You may though, get players who play on both, which is no different to the current playing habits of many other players on production shards.
The selfish and self-interested, I will never understand. In any multi-user online environment, the validity of any points they raise are always questionable to say the least.
Those who weren't around pre-Trammel/pre-AoS, who enter into the debate, usually do so either through fear of losing what they like about current UO, or to simply follow arguments in a lemming-like fashion, or it falls under the category of resource/population fears. Although their input is occasionally valid, they truly understand what pro-classic supporters are asking for, because they weren't around to share the experience at the time.
As for anti-PvP, I respect their sentiments entirely. It's not something for everyone and I understand when they don't want it rammed down their throats. That's what Trammel was for and they're free to enjoy the world as they like it, without fear or risk of encountering those who like and participate in PvP. They have entirely nothing to fear from Siege or "classic" servers, because just like on their production shards, they have the choice not to participate in PvP.
If they feel that just because they don't like it, nobody else should have the choice to participate in PvP, they then fall under the "self-interested/selfish" category.
I think that pretty much sums things up really.
What is important at this stage, is that it appears to be something that Cal and the development team at Mythic have under consideration. Going by Cal's previous comments, it's also something that has (or may have been) presented to EA on more than one occasion. I recall some comment of a business plan being presented to EA, or the need to present one.
This means that the ball is firmly in EA's court. They're the paymasters, they make the decisions. No doubt if a business plan is (or has been) presented by Mythic, it will mean they possibly would request additional resources from EA, based on figures they present suggesting there's sufficient demand and it will be profitable.
A possible response from EA might be that they won't provide additional resources, but if Mythic feel they can accomplish all their production goals, (Production Shards, Siege Ruleset and "classic"), within their current budgetary structure, then the ball is in Mythic's court.
We'll likely never be party to such corporate or production decisions, but hopefully at some point, we'll know what the final outcome of those decisions are, be they "yes" or "no".
· Fear of more development resources being spent on creating/maintaining classic servers, as opposed to production servers.
· Fear of loss of players from already dwindling numbers on lower population production servers.
· Fear that it could be the death-knell for Siege ruleset servers, mainly from Siege players. Misconception from non-Siege players being that Siege is just about PvP only and nothing else.
· Simple selfishness or self-interest. "Sod everyone else" attitude.
· People who didn't play in what's considered the "classic" UO era (pre-Trammel/Pre-AoS), who don't know any different, but follow the opinion in lemming fashion of those who are anti-classic.
· Those who abhor any form of competitiveness that results in "pixel death", caused by another player. Also known as PvP. Therefore, they're predisposed to be against any aspect of UO which features PvP, even though as currently, they have the choice not to participate.
Now of all those points, the one's I most understand and am concern appreciative of, is devotion of resources/production time, plus population implications.
I do believe that a "classic" option will attract the interest of current players from some of the production shards, but I don't believe this will be any different to players (like myself over the years), who don't just play on the one shard. Therefore I doubt there will be a mass exodus of players from production shards, as some people would suggest. As far as population of production shards goes, I think it will be entirely negligible in impact.
I'm afraid that unless Siege gets the attention that the majority of its player-base has been requesting for a long time, then "classic" shards may pull a portion of its players away. If Siege does get the fixes/changes the players seem to want there, then just as with the production shards, any "classic" impact should only be negligible. You may though, get players who play on both, which is no different to the current playing habits of many other players on production shards.
The selfish and self-interested, I will never understand. In any multi-user online environment, the validity of any points they raise are always questionable to say the least.
Those who weren't around pre-Trammel/pre-AoS, who enter into the debate, usually do so either through fear of losing what they like about current UO, or to simply follow arguments in a lemming-like fashion, or it falls under the category of resource/population fears. Although their input is occasionally valid, they truly understand what pro-classic supporters are asking for, because they weren't around to share the experience at the time.
As for anti-PvP, I respect their sentiments entirely. It's not something for everyone and I understand when they don't want it rammed down their throats. That's what Trammel was for and they're free to enjoy the world as they like it, without fear or risk of encountering those who like and participate in PvP. They have entirely nothing to fear from Siege or "classic" servers, because just like on their production shards, they have the choice not to participate in PvP.
If they feel that just because they don't like it, nobody else should have the choice to participate in PvP, they then fall under the "self-interested/selfish" category.
I think that pretty much sums things up really.
What is important at this stage, is that it appears to be something that Cal and the development team at Mythic have under consideration. Going by Cal's previous comments, it's also something that has (or may have been) presented to EA on more than one occasion. I recall some comment of a business plan being presented to EA, or the need to present one.
This means that the ball is firmly in EA's court. They're the paymasters, they make the decisions. No doubt if a business plan is (or has been) presented by Mythic, it will mean they possibly would request additional resources from EA, based on figures they present suggesting there's sufficient demand and it will be profitable.
A possible response from EA might be that they won't provide additional resources, but if Mythic feel they can accomplish all their production goals, (Production Shards, Siege Ruleset and "classic"), within their current budgetary structure, then the ball is in Mythic's court.
We'll likely never be party to such corporate or production decisions, but hopefully at some point, we'll know what the final outcome of those decisions are, be they "yes" or "no".