Do you think the Requirement for Tactics for Special Moves should be removed from the Game?

[Lefty]

The Requirement of Tactics for Special Moves was introduced in Publish 46. For the most part this was the brain child of one player who believed that UO should be more of a class based system. The introduction of this had nothing to do with game balance. The balance issues which most will agree on were the lack of damage caps and dps ranging from Melee to Spell Damage. For the most part all of these have been addressed.

UO had an edge over all other MMO's and that was mix and match skill sets, however this changed after Publish 46. Many Templates and skills added through the various expansions have become more or less obsolete do to this requirement in a system where fitting skills in a already crowded template is near hopeless.

I am sure most have experienced this issue and question its validity in the game.

 

[lucitus]

Sure it was and it should stay.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

As I recall the changes had nothing to do with someone wanting a class-based system. Whomever this player was must have been at once quite powerful and quite quiet. I actually remember no one arguing for a class-based system. If someone did I've blocked them out.

The Publish 46 Notes are reproduced on the UO Guide. Google could not immediately locate a more-primary source.

http://www.uoguide.com/Publish_46

Note the header under which the Tactics requirement and many other changes are located: PvP Changes.

That header matches accurately what I recall the concern being at the time. A concern within the PvP community that certain items (apples, potions), certain templates (special move damage is replacing the need for an entire skill! mages are useless now! mage duel me 1v1 for 100m!!), and even certain pets (I guess some folks on LS were tired of being owned by my friend and his wicked lesser hiryu) were over-powered in PvP.

Any attempt to suggest that there was another concern besides PvP behind these changes is simple revisionist history, and does not match the facts. If you look at the list of changes there's only one PvM reason for them, and that's to semi-nerf Sampires, and anyone who knows PvM can tell you it would take more than that to nerf Sampires....And guess what? Sampires retain their power to this very day as the most-efficient way to solo many high-end critters. And PvM not being a competitive activity there's little reason for players to want to nerf Sampires (you just wait for them to finish whatever Peerless it is, then activate your own keys when they are done).

And if the team had had PvM in mind when they wrote the changes, if they wanted to nerf Sampires as a matter of policy, wouldn't they have said so? ("PvM Template Balance Changes" or something.) They didn't.

As to the changes themselves? As I recall I was iffy about the at the time and remain iffy about them now. What I actually said I have not a clue but that's how I felt, and still feel. Iffy.

-Galen's player

 

[Vexxed]

The Requirement of Tactics for Special Moves was introduced in Publish 46. For the most part this was the brain child of one player who believed that UO should be more of a class based system. The introduction of this had nothing to do with game balance. The balance issues which most will agree on were the lack of damage caps and dps ranging from Melee to Spell Damage. For the most part all of these have been addressed.

UO had an edge over all other MMO's and that was mix and match skill sets, however this changed after Publish 46. Many Templates and skills added through the various expansions have become more or less obsolete do to this requirement in a system where fitting skills in a already crowded template is near hopeless.

I am sure most have experienced this issue and question its validity in the game.

That part above.... NOT TRUE. You had Weapon wielding mages with ALL the benefits of both weapon specials and magery pulling scribe mage combo's stacked with weapon specs for pretty much instant kills. If the tactics requirement was removed you'd get a whole group of new templates that were insane killing machines. Imagine Focused Inscribe Mages spamming mortal or AI with combos etc... Anyway, I ultimately wouldn't care if they did remove it bc I adapt faster then most after 15 years. It would ultimately allow me to have an advantage for awhile until other's started copying etc.. I don't see the NO Tactics coming back though.

 

[Lefty]

As I recall the changes had nothing to do with someone wanting a class-based system. Whomever this player was must have been at once quite powerful and quite quiet. I actually remember no one arguing for a class-based system. If someone did I've blocked them out.

The Publish 46 Notes are reproduced on the UO Guide. Google could not immediately locate a more-primary source.

http://www.uoguide.com/Publish_46

Note the header under which the Tactics requirement and many other changes are located: PvP Changes.

That header matches accurately what I recall the concern being at the time. A concern within the PvP community that certain items (apples, potions), certain templates (special move damage is replacing the need for an entire skill! mages are useless now! mage duel me 1v1 for 100m!!), and even certain pets (I guess some folks on LS were tired of being owned by my friend and his wicked lesser hiryu) were over-powered in PvP.

Any attempt to suggest that there was another concern besides PvP behind these changes is simple revisionist history, and does not match the facts. If you look at the list of changes there's only one PvM reason for them, and that's to semi-nerf Sampires, and anyone who knows PvM can tell you it would take more than that to nerf Sampires....And guess what? Sampires retain their power to this very day as the most-efficient way to solo many high-end critters. And PvM not being a competitive activity there's little reason for players to want to nerf Sampires (you just wait for them to finish whatever Peerless it is, then activate your own keys when they are done).

And if the team had had PvM in mind when they wrote the changes, if they wanted to nerf Sampires as a matter of policy, wouldn't they have said so? ("PvM Template Balance Changes" or something.) They didn't.

As to the changes themselves? As I recall I was iffy about the at the time and remain iffy about them now. What I actually said I have not a clue but that's how I felt, and still feel. Iffy.

-Galen's player

Those of us remember, though proof is hard to come by since stratics has deleted countless of archives over the years. The primary Two responsible was GuildMule and Jeremy Dalberg The 2008 Community Coordinator. Though I am sure others that were on the 1st PvP balance group and others will recall. I can try to access my old email account where I do have some information.

But to say though the request for tactics requirement was not made by the masses.

 

[Lefty]

That part above.... NOT TRUE. You had Weapon wielding mages with ALL the benefits of both weapon specials and magery pulling scribe mage combo's stacked with weapon specs for pretty much instant kills. If the tactics requirement was removed you'd get a whole group of new templates that were insane killing machines. Imagine Focused Inscribe Mages spamming mortal or AI with combos etc... Anyway, I ultimately wouldn't care if they did remove it bc I adapt faster then most after 15 years. It would ultimately allow me to have an advantage for awhile until other's started copying etc.. I don't see the NO Tactics coming back though.

That would require a 7x Template.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Those of us remember, though proof is hard to come by since stratics has deleted countless of archives over the years. The primary Two responsible was GuildMule and Jeremy Dalberg The 2008 Community Coordinator. Though I am sure others that were on the 1st PvP balance group and others will recall. I can try to access my old email account where I do have some information.

But to say though the request for tactics requirement was not made by the masses.

Jeremy was a team member, though she also did play actively. I don't recall her saying anything about this stuff. She's become, in some quarters, though, a convenient dart board. Firstly she's long gone. Secondly by definition in her role one of her primary responsibilities was dealing with us, hence she was a public face upon which things could be blamed.

Guildmule...I recall the name only, off-hand.

-Galen's player

 

[Lefty]

Jeremy was a team member, though she also did play actively. I don't recall her saying anything about this stuff. She's become, in some quarters, though, a convenient dart board. Firstly she's long gone. Secondly by definition in her role one of her primary responsibilities was dealing with us, hence she was a public face upon which things could be blamed.

Guildmule...I recall the name only, off-hand.

-Galen's player

Well I just wanted to get a variety of views on this. I can see Vexxed concerns, perhaps they are valid in the current system, then again maybe not game breaking. I know prior to 46 it wasn't. It was all a part of the strategy dexer vs mage.

What I do miss is the variety of warrior templates.

 

[cdavbar]

I know prior to 46 it wasn't.

Apparently it was game breaking if they added it. Vexxed had a very valid response.

I

What I do miss is the variety of warrior templates.

There still is a variety. However the fact that some weapon classes do not really have a viable weapon to compete with other classes is why there is a loss in that variety you seek. Removing tactics will not change a thing.

 

[Shakkara]

Tactics can stay, but BUSHIDO AND NINJITSU must be removed! Especially from Whirlwind! Make that damage bonus tactics scaled instead.

 

[Basara]

How about:

1. Keeping tactics as a requirement, but making it not real-skill dependent like the weapon skill part of the equation. This would allow warrior templates to be more varied, while still keeping them warrior templates.
2. Adding Anatomy and Chivalry to the list of special move cost reducers. After all, Bushido and Ninjitsu are on the list, and Anatomy is primarily a warrior skill (except for the few Eval/anat defensive wrestlers out there, using their bracers of alchemical devastation).
3. Adding penalties for simultaneous use of abilities from 2 or more of the 4 "combat caster" skills (Bushido, Chivalry, Necromancy, Ninjitsu), such as using a bushido or chivalry buff while in a necro or ninja alternate form, using necro attack or debuff spells while using EoO, Evade, confidence, et al, or other combinations. Really, a sandbox is one thing - playing a walking oxymoron is another (starts imagining Balhae PvPers wearing kilts, while eating candy).

 

[Vessel the Humakti]

The Requirement of Tactics for Special Moves was introduced in Publish 46. For the most part this was the brain child of one player who believed that UO should be more of a class based system. The introduction of this had nothing to do with game balance. The balance issues which most will agree on were the lack of damage caps and dps ranging from Melee to Spell Damage. For the most part all of these have been addressed.

UO had an edge over all other MMO's and that was mix and match skill sets, however this changed after Publish 46. Many Templates and skills added through the various expansions have become more or less obsolete do to this requirement in a system where fitting skills in a already crowded template is near hopeless.

I am sure most have experienced this issue and question its validity in the game.

When remove Tactics lock, it caused rising up warriors power, So My answer is "Negative".

 

[Arcades]

I say just get rid of the inability to toggle a spell and special at the same time. Yes I think the tactics requirement for specials really neutered the hybrid classes and I'm all for template diversity, but at least give us spell toggling back and then we'll talk about getting rid of tactics requirement because then all the mages/mystics will cry wolf why they need eval/focus and its a valid point.

 

[CovenantX]

I could only wish tactics changes & spec/toggling while casting spells were reverted pre-pub 46...

as demonstrated in : PvP Needs Attention a long with many other changes...
Balance is key.

 

[Nyses]

How about making the requirement for special moves, Tactics or Anatomy? Tactics along with your weapon skill, allows one to perform special moves, many for more damage. Could an advanced knowledge of anatomy, not provide valuable info as to weak/vulnerable spots in ones anatomy, providing additional damage or painful distractions, in order to pull of other special moves, like shadow strike or feint?

After all, it has been done with Imbuing/Focus.