NEWS [UO.Com] Updated Publish 81 on TC1

[Lord Frodo]

Walls, teleport and various fields have not "normally been the way of rpg games," and even if they were, it doesn't mean that they're any less underpowered than curse.

You may want to start your statement off with something other than this. I would really love to know what RPG MMO you played 15 years ago that makes this a true statement. To my understanding didn't UO start this ball rolling and everybody else jumped on the bandwagon later on. If you are not talking MMOs then you may want to step back in time even more to say 1981-82, Ultima 1981 and Wizardy 1982.

 

[Warpig Inc]

Doesn't mage armor in the new plan just turn heavy/med armor into leather/light armor as far as the new stam and med bonuses?

If a suit build is going for the effect of wearing all heavy head to toe. And the build uses arty with mage armor on them already. Then removal needs to be made possible. There is those plate arty with mage armor mod not intended for mage use. Add in with the mage armor mod remover the ability of removing the nasty mage weapon and channel stains.

As pointed out on most those great sammy plate pieces was the product of many burned val hammers. Due to the way most those hammers came into being. Not being able to remove mage armor also works if that armor will be squiggy clrap.

Basic balance looks good so far. Not great though. Want to med and be all spell crafty you wear the armor that will leave you seeing stars when a war hammer rings your bell. Wear the heavy as a fighter and the bell sounds without all the ringing echo. Armor seperation and cure for the mixed armor clown looking suit wishes are being granted.

Maybe they need to just have an art change for heavy/med armor and title change to mythril (Mythril Plate Helm) for any armor with mage armor mod. That way there is no confusion when wearing mage armor modded non light armor.

Wonder under the new armor system the odd leather armor piece I have with mage armor will work. If I get hit will the armageddon spell go off and the wearer just expodes when hit doing 1000 HP chaos damage area effect?

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

First off, Ninjitsu is *Not* a warrior skill. As I said, Ninjitsu is Ninjitsu. It may provide more usefulness to warriors but that does not imply that it *should not* be useful to a mage at all. To draw the conclusion that he only cares about it's usefulness to mages seems like a bit of a stretch, considering he didn't even mention Mages ONCE.



You might want to do at least a little research before you debate a point with me. The *only* difference between a thrower and an archer is NOT the extra damage output of throwing weapons. Last I checked, Throwing weapons were one handed. Which means that, in order to chug pots with a bow, you have to use an entire property and 100 intensity weight. If you don't think that makes a huge difference, then why don't you ask an archer what he thinks? Also, Throwers also have a cap of 50% HCI (although not for long), and the ability to fly. That HCI makes (made) a big difference, and also Archers would function as better dismounters (without pets) if getting on foot wasn't more of a risk. What do throwers often do 1v1 to kill their opponents? They dismount them, then they remount (fly) and hit their opponents before they can remount; giving them the advantage of (being mounted), while their opponent has to sit there and let them chain throws without having to stop to move much. Combine having one less property on their weapons, less hci, no ability to fly, AND a much lower damage out put per second, and it's easy to see why Throwers are much better generally and at 1v1's. Nerf Throwers a little, buff Archers a little, and you will find balance.

Oh and btw, I could accuse you of being bias just as easily as you could accuse me. I'm arguing the point that throwers need to be nerfed a bit. That alone doesn't mean I'm bias in favor of mages. "Truly sad bro"? How about try again?

P.S. On my mage, I probably mash a few more than 3 keys than you. My spellbook has 64 spells. How much does yours have?

1) "This coming from someone who has a thrower and 4 mages"
Spoony's own quote from this very thread. And he did quite obviously only voice his displeasure over the nerf when it was changed to also apply to mages.

2) Log onto Atl with your mage and fight any one of my warrior classes.
During the entire course of the fight you will not cast more then maybe 8 different spells.
Please spare me your 64 spell nonsense lol.
90% of so-called good mages don't even cast 8 spells. They cast curse, explo then spam fs. Maybe a small spell to try and finish. If they even have to cast heal or cure more then once they offscreen and rant that your temp is overpowered lol.
Ohh, my bad. Most of them also cast invis and protection lol. That's 8 total on a pure mage. What % of your 64 spells is that? Deal with it or come to Atl and prove me wrong.

3) Nice job showing how biased you are by actually trying to state that Curse is not overpowered at all.
I guess Throwers are not over powered at all either?
Nothing is over powered?

 

[Cetric]

1) "This coming from someone who has a thrower and 4 mages"
Spoony's own quote from this very thread. And he did quite obviously only voice his displeasure over the nerf when it was changed to also apply to mages.

2) Log onto Atl with your mage and fight any one of my warrior classes.
During the entire course of the fight you will not cast more then maybe 8 different spells.
Please spare me your 64 spell nonsense lol.
90% of so-called good mages don't even cast 8 spells. They cast curse, explo then spam fs. Maybe a small spell to try and finish. If they even have to cast heal or cure more then once they offscreen and rant that your temp is overpowered lol.
Ohh, my bad. Most of them also cast invis and protection lol. That's 8 total on a pure mage. What % of your 64 spells is that? Deal with it or come to Atl and prove me wrong.

3) Nice job showing how biased you are by actually trying to state that Curse is not overpowered at all.
I guess Throwers are not over powered at all either?
Nothing is over powered?

Ok, i've gotta ask. Who are your chars on atlantic?

 

[Barry Gibb]

…If anything as a mage, you can forego max DCI and go with a smaller amount since at smaller levels you get smaller drops. No more negative DCI...

There is still negative DCI.

HLD continues to provide that same benefits as Pub 80 were mobs with 0 DCI will lose -25 DCI.

I would like to know if the new HLD formula behaves similar to this: http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/#post-2238044.
Do the other low DCI values result in negative DCI under HLD, or is it just at 0 DCI?

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

…Overcapping to completely negate an effect is pretty silly anyway.

I agree. It is time to begin removing of overcapping, so the intended drawbacks of a property/spell/effect are a conscious choice and not completely negated.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

The HLD, DCI, and Refining changes make an important change that too few have commented upon: More can be less. Getting a higher DCI cap can lead to your losing more DCI when hit with HLD. ...

This is not directed specifically toward you Galen, but merely an expansion on the topic in general.

Changing the HLD to a percentage loss (-55% DCI) rather than its current flat decrease (-25 DCI) will cause a player with higher DCI to lose more actual DCI, than a player with less DCI. However, while being under HLD, the end result is that a player who started with higher DCI will still have more DCI than the other player. HLD working on a percentage loss is an excellent change. It is equally effective against all targets, and DCI remains important.

The problem begins in that a player can still overcap his DCI to eliminate the effects of HLD. This leads to the "Less is More" scenarios described earlier: http://stratics.com/community/threads/uo-com-updated-publish-81-on-tc1.295073/page-4#post-2242902. A player with a 45 DCI Cap can maintain More DCI through HLD, than a player with >45 DCI Cap using Less total DCI points, while suffering no loss of resists. Consider the following:

Pub 81 Case 1:
Player A has 75 Max DCI from Armor Refinement and has 75 DCI.
Player B has 45 Max DCI and has 75 DCI.
Both players have equal skill and HCI.

Player B if hit with HLD will remain at 45 DCI due to over cap while Player A will be reduced to 34DCI.
Player B by over capping wins in this case versus HLD but Player A benefits from the fact that they are able to reach 70% DCI.
Player A while not under the effects of HLD is receiving a 9% defense increase over Player B.(Total Hit Chance)

Player A can only achieve the same DCI through HLD as Player B if he also overcaps his DCI. However, Player A will need more DCI points to reach the same 45 DCI as Player B. He will need to overcap his DCI to 86.25, just to remain at 45 DCI through HLD (player B only requires 70 DCI to over cap). Player A will also lose 15 resist points from his cap (+2 DCI = -1 Resist Point), where as Player B has no resist loss. The chart below expands this scenario to the entire DCI Cap range (45-95).

The Blue Line plots the total DCI required to have 45 DCI under the effects of HLD (equal to Player B). In addition to lower resists, Players with higher DCI Caps (Player A) will require more total DCI just to achieve the same effective DCI as Player B, under HLD. It is a clear disadvantage to Player A. Player A lost 15 Resists and needs 16.50 more DCI, just to be equal to Player B. What did he trade the resists for versus HLD?

The Red Line plots the total DCI required to maintain your DCI Cap through HLD, to gain the full benefit of the Armor Refinements. It is clearly more difficult to HLD Proof your suit (as you would expect). In order for Player A to gain an atvantage over Player B, he will need to increase his total DCI to a number between the blue and red lines, for his given DCI Cap. Below is a chart plotting the resists lost versus the DCI Cap increase (for reference).

The change to a percentage based HLD and increasing the DCI cap are good steps in the right direction for making them useful and giving the players choices/options. However, something must be done to DCI to eliminate the problems/confusion it causes, creating the “Less is More” scenarios presented by Case #1. It is counterintuitive and needs to be simpler for the players.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Picus at the office]

Nice work Barry, why can't we get the same information from the team. I'm trying to be as non-critical as one can be but this is the exact informaiton we should be getting and not being so reliant upon players for.

 

[RaistlinNowhere]

I've seen a lot of comments about the complexity of refining and we are working to streamline and simplify the refining process based on some of the conversations we've had with the testers on TC (I have to tip my hat to Tina, she's been a testing machine!) and from out of game feedback as well. A smart guy once said, "There's a problem with opening Pandora's Box - you can't close it." I think we can all agree that our Pandora's Box is wide open(AoS, Enhancing, Imbuing, Reforging, Refining). I'll save the debate for whether or not it should've stayed closed or not for another day, but that's the hand we've got and we need to build from there.


One of our goals is to revitalize the crafter profession so that even if you don't want to get into the nitty gritty of suit building, there is someone else who will. Another player pointed out that some time ago it seemed like crafters were all but extinct and now that isn't the case. That gives me a warm fuzzy.


Well I've rambled on for long enough and I think my muffins are about to burn. Thanks again everyone for testing and giving feedback!

1º) the problem i see with refinements , is that there are too many "levels" of it. Make it with only 3 levels at max. Also too tedious to get and make working all the mats we need for it.

2º) Im glad that the Dev Team is working to make crafters existing again at UO world as an active player and not as a slave working char in our accounts hehe. BUT if you want that , you must to talk and ask at the crafter forum, and make a good platform to work togehter, so we can find better solutions for making crafting important again at UO as it used to be.

3º) About the armor revamp, and all this stuff, ill repeat myself again, WE NEED some love for ingots type, as they are as now, are useless except for making bods (and golden for luck). They need some buff like the wood had on legacy, dont need to be overpowered, just useful for at least making us to think about using other ingots than verite or valorite for resists. AND dont forget about weapons made of coloured ingots, right now are better the weapons of plain iron than using coloured ones. If you DONT have some love for ingots, this revamp will be only half way done.

4º) If you make the move about the coloured ingots, you also NEED then to make woodland armor to get the same 1% inherent lmc as metal armor has. I can understand that you dont want woodland armor get the buff because will be overpowered against the metal armor but if you do the ingots stuff .......

5º) About the mage armor issue and stam loss reduction. You need to do something about this because it will make a lot of artifacts useless, some as important as gladiators for example and many others. And what about glasses? How much stam loss reduction and inherent lmc they have? No info about this, same for spirit of the totem and headress hunters.

One solution i see for mage armor is to make it works half of a med piece bonus, or active med with mage armor to give the same bonus as passive med on medable armor, but dont take away the stam loss reducion.

 

[Mitzlplik_LS]

All this armor revamp mess just makes my head hurt already. It makes me wonder exactly who they are listening to when they say they listen to the community. Cause as far as I know,this is not drawn from community feedback or suggestions at all. Just more complex BS to what could have been a simple solution to making all armors on par with leather.

I knew it would be over thought and made into ALOT more than it had to be.

Wouldn`t be UO any other way.

 

[Barry Gibb]

Nice work Barry, why can't we get the same information from the team. I'm trying to be as non-critical as one can be but this is the exact informaiton we should be getting and not being so reliant upon players for.

Thank you.

The Dev Team is giving us this information, just in a different format. We (the players) are play-testing, analyzing and providing feedback (mostly constructive ) to them regarding various aspects of their proposals. Their publish notes provide the summary of the changes but do not elaborate on how they may (or may not) effect X, Y, Z, and other "what if" situations. They most likely perform their own high level analysis on the proposed changes to catch anything really bad (think of it as a wide net) and to actually see if it doesn't break anything. If they had to explore the specifics, then you would see alot of "what about this and this" questions and any change would take longer to make. They may also be less receptive to feedback and changes to the proposal, having invested all the time and resources into putting it together.

Some people are comfortable reading equations and charts, but I suspect most would rather not (especailly when it comes to a game). No disrespect to Tina Small (she is doing a phenomenal job with the Armor Refinement proposals), but she pretty much sums it all up:

I have to admit, this is where I start getting glassy-eyed, because I just don't usually worry about DCI and HLD ..

Most players just want to play the game and expect it to be intuative and fun. They know two very important things: 1). Taking More damage is Bad, 2). Dealing More Damage is Good. If the developers presented charts and figures, I suspect that most people will be turned off by it, stare blankly, and just simply ignore it beacause that is easier to do. Too Much Information can be more hurtful than Too Little Information. Finding the happy middle ground is not always easy. The level of information they give us can also help them gauge how receptive we are to the proposal.

Besides, if they gave us all the answers, what would we do.

This team is doing an excellent job at communication with this next publish. Sure there have been some bumps in the road. Sure there are things that I think need work. But they are finally making the most out of us, the free user jury.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

5º) About the mage armor issue and stam loss reduction. You need to do something about this because it will make a lot of artifacts useless, some as important as gladiators for example and many others. And what about glasses? How much stam loss reduction and inherent lmc they have? No info about this, same for spirit of the totem and headress hunters.

#3 and #4 I completley agree with. Ingots need a new look. That part of Pandora's Box was opened with the ML wood changes (it is a good part). They give us a variety of options to customize our characters.

#5. I can't see why people claim that Mage Armor on Artifacts will make them useless. They will be the same usefullness as they are today. Mage Armor on Artifacts now is a blessing and it will not turn into a curse with this publish. I understand the arguement of Mage Armor on crafted/imbued armor, but not on artifacts. Artifacts are just along for the ride.

Glasses most likely count as "jewelry" since they are Tinker Repairable (similar to gargish earrings and necklaces). The Spirit of the Totem and Hunter's Headdress most likely count as leather, since normal bear and deer masks do as well.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Picus at the office]

I don't disagree with what you wrote Barry but I would still argue that the information provided should be in a clearer and easier to understand format. Throwing our new changes without explaining how they effect game play is a poor practice and leads to confusion, frustration and content not being used to the degree it could(higher end reforging with hammers is something that comes to mind).

This all said I again thank you for your clear head and willingness to add to the debate in a far more informative fashion than I have.

 

[RaistlinNowhere]

#3 and #4 I completley agree with. Ingots need a new look. That part of Pandora's Box was opened with the ML wood changes (it is a good part). They give us a variety of options to customize our characters.

#5. I can't see why people claim that Mage Armor on Artifacts will make them useless. They will be the same usefullness as they are today. Mage Armor on Artifacts now is a blessing and it will not turn into a curse with this publish. I understand the arguement of Mage Armor on crafted/imbued armor, but not on artifacts. Artifacts are just along for the ride.

Glasses most likely count as "jewelry" since they are Tinker Repairable (similar to gargish earrings and necklaces). The Spirit of the Totem and Hunter's Headdress most likely count as leather, since normal bear and deer masks do as well.

Stayin Alive,

BG

The problem with mage armor in those artifacts, is that they will lose the stam loss reduction and inherent lmc because they become medables. Until this next publish all mage armor mod on artifacts was a welcome plus, but with this next publish it will become a doomed mod. The best example i can say again is the gladiators collar.
Im starting to replace the gladiator collar on my templates for 10 hci woodland gorgets for example, at least i wont lose so much stam loss reduction.

 

[ShadowTrauma]

I would like to know if the new HLD formula behaves similar to this: http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/#post-2238044.
Do the other low DCI values result in negative DCI under HLD, or is it just at 0 DCI?

I would also like an answer to the above (bolded) question, there are some of players who choose to run with less DCI, and further explaination would be greatly appreciated.

A big thank you from me as well Barry, as you can tell I certainly have enjoyed your last several posts, and was also grateful to see that the Devs have embraced your suggestion on the Elven Composite Bow's speed as well.

"Most players just want to play the game and expect it to be intuative and fun.", as true a statement as you will often see around here... The "Refinement conundrum" still leaves me skeptical at this time, and I remain patiently waiting for further proposals/revisions (if deemed warranted). I must admit I agree with the notion that it is a shame the enhancement bonuses (ingots, leather, etc...) were not revised/updated instead of adding an entirely new system (in it's current state).

 

[Barry Gibb]

The problem with mage armor in those artifacts, is that they will lose the stam loss reduction and inherent lmc because they become medables.

I don't see how they can lose something they never had.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Felonious Monk]

This is not directed specifically toward you Galen, but merely an expansion on the topic in general.

Changing the HLD to a percentage loss (-55% DCI) rather than its current flat decrease (-25 DCI) will cause a player with higher DCI to lose more actual DCI, than a player with less DCI. However, while being under HLD, the end result is that a player who started with higher DCI will still have more DCI than the other player. HLD working on a percentage loss is an excellent change. It is equally effective against all targets, and DCI remains important.

The problem begins in that a player can still overcap his DCI to eliminate the effects of HLD. This leads to the "Less is More" scenarios described earlier: http://stratics.com/community/threads/uo-com-updated-publish-81-on-tc1.295073/page-4#post-2242902. A player with a 45 DCI Cap can maintain More DCI through HLD, than a player with >45 DCI Cap using Less total DCI points, while suffering no loss of resists. Consider the following:


Player A can only achieve the same DCI through HLD as Player B if he also overcaps his DCI. However, Player A will need more DCI points to reach the same 45 DCI as Player B. He will need to overcap his DCI to 86.25, just to remain at 45 DCI through HLD (player B only requires 70 DCI to over cap). Player A will also lose 15 resist points from his cap (+2 DCI = -1 Resist Point), where as Player B has no resist loss. The chart below expands this scenario to the entire DCI Cap range (45-95).

The Blue Line plots the total DCI required to have 45 DCI under the effects of HLD (equal to Player B). In addition to lower resists, Players with higher DCI Caps (Player A) will require more total DCI just to achieve the same effective DCI as Player B, under HLD. It is a clear disadvantage to Player A. Player A lost 15 Resists and needs 16.50 more DCI, just to be equal to Player B. What did he trade the resists for versus HLD?

The Red Line plots the total DCI required to maintain your DCI Cap through HLD, to gain the full benefit of the Armor Refinements. It is clearly more difficult to HLD Proof your suit (as you would expect). In order for Player A to gain an atvantage over Player B, he will need to increase his total DCI to a number between the blue and red lines, for his given DCI Cap. Below is a chart plotting the resists lost versus the DCI Cap increase (for reference).

The change to a percentage based HLD and increasing the DCI cap are good steps in the right direction for making them useful and giving the players choices/options. However, something must be done to DCI to eliminate the problems/confusion it causes, creating the “Less is More” scenarios presented by Case #1. It is counterintuitive and needs to be simpler for the players.

Stayin Alive,

BG

If you changed your font color I would read your post. Darker please. *winks*

 

[Barry Gibb]

If you changed your font color I would read your post. Darker please. *winks*

It's the default color text. Are you just picking on my charts?

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[RaistlinNowhere]

I don't see how they can lose something they never had.

Stayin Alive,

BG

Because they are going to put a modified stam loss system , and a modified stam loss reduction, and with mage armor these artifacts will lose that something they never had but would need at the next publish since are metal armors ^^

 

[Petra Fyde]

Barry, are you copy/pasting from somewhere? The posts are almost unreadable on the uo theme.
If you edit and use the 'remove formatting' eraser top left it will become readable in all themes.

 

[Barry Gibb]

If you could lose something you never had, could anyone find it?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

If a banana falls from a tree, does it dance?



Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Those who are having trouble reading Barry's post due to the text color I urge you to find a way to read it, because it is an almost-frightfully useful post. Thank you, Barry for the post.

A team member or two has thumbs upped it, so I'm assuming it's accurate.

Assuming it is....I am pleased to mostly be wrong about the "more is less scenario." As you describe it basically it's limiting the ability of a player to overcap and have a higher cap, at the same time.

I am pleased to have been wrong in my interpretation.

I still maintain this is too complicated, however, and I also fret for the impact of 95 DCI in PvM.

Again, thank you Barry.

-Galen's player

This is not directed specifically toward you Galen, but merely an expansion on the topic in general.

Changing the HLD to a percentage loss (-55% DCI) rather than its current flat decrease (-25 DCI) will cause a player with higher DCI to lose more actual DCI, than a player with less DCI. However, while being under HLD, the end result is that a player who started with higher DCI will still have more DCI than the other player. HLD working on a percentage loss is an excellent change. It is equally effective against all targets, and DCI remains important.

The problem begins in that a player can still overcap his DCI to eliminate the effects of HLD. This leads to the "Less is More" scenarios described earlier: http://stratics.com/community/threads/uo-com-updated-publish-81-on-tc1.295073/page-4#post-2242902. A player with a 45 DCI Cap can maintain More DCI through HLD, than a player with >45 DCI Cap using Less total DCI points, while suffering no loss of resists. Consider the following:


Player A can only achieve the same DCI through HLD as Player B if he also overcaps his DCI. However, Player A will need more DCI points to reach the same 45 DCI as Player B. He will need to overcap his DCI to 86.25, just to remain at 45 DCI through HLD (player B only requires 70 DCI to over cap). Player A will also lose 15 resist points from his cap (+2 DCI = -1 Resist Point), where as Player B has no resist loss. The chart below expands this scenario to the entire DCI Cap range (45-95).

The Blue Line plots the total DCI required to have 45 DCI under the effects of HLD (equal to Player B). In addition to lower resists, Players with higher DCI Caps (Player A) will require more total DCI just to achieve the same effective DCI as Player B, under HLD. It is a clear disadvantage to Player A. Player A lost 15 Resists and needs 16.50 more DCI, just to be equal to Player B. What did he trade the resists for versus HLD?

The Red Line plots the total DCI required to maintain your DCI Cap through HLD, to gain the full benefit of the Armor Refinements. It is clearly more difficult to HLD Proof your suit (as you would expect). In order for Player A to gain an atvantage over Player B, he will need to increase his total DCI to a number between the blue and red lines, for his given DCI Cap. Below is a chart plotting the resists lost versus the DCI Cap increase (for reference).

The change to a percentage based HLD and increasing the DCI cap are good steps in the right direction for making them useful and giving the players choices/options. However, something must be done to DCI to eliminate the problems/confusion it causes, creating the “Less is More” scenarios presented by Case #1. It is counterintuitive and needs to be simpler for the players.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

Barry, are you copy/pasting from somewhere? The posts are almost unreadable on the uo theme.
If you edit and use the 'remove formatting' eraser top left it will become readable in all themes.

If you changed your font color I would read your post. Darker please. *winks*

Did that work?

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

Foiled by my own Forum Ineptitude!!!

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[CovenantX]

I would also like an answer to the above (bolded) question, there are some of players who choose to run with less DCI, and further explaination would be greatly appreciated.

A big thank you from me as well Barry, as you can tell I certainly have enjoyed your last several posts, and was also grateful to see that the Devs have embraced your suggestion on the Elven Composite Bow's speed as well.

A Target affected by HLD, that has 0 DCI, will be reduced to -25 DCI as it was pre-pub 81.

HLD seems to use -25 DCI, OR -55% DCI (whichever is greater). a much needed buff to HLD, since the discovery of over-capping dci makes you immune.

 

[Barry Gibb]

Those who are having trouble reading Barry's post due to the text color I urge you to find a way to read it, because it is an almost-frightfully useful post. Thank you, Barry for the post.

A team member or two has thumbs upped it, so I'm assuming it's accurate.

Assuming it is....I am pleased to mostly be wrong about the "more is less scenario." As you describe it basically it's limiting the ability of a player to overcap and have a higher cap, at the same time.

I am pleased to have been wrong in my interpretation.

I still maintain this is too complicated, however, and I also fret for the impact of 95 DCI in PvM.

Again, thank you Barry.

-Galen's player

It's wierd, because the text looks just the same as everyone elses to me.

There is both good and bad shown in the post:
Good - Limiting the player from overcapping DCI and having a higher DCI cap.
Bad - Overcapping DCI makes not using the Armor Reinforcements the better alternative for DCI and Resists (they are not useful). Evidenced in the Player A / Player B scenario.

Overcapping DCI is making it complicated. It detracts from the usefulness and potential of the new refinements. IF overcapping disappears AND the crafting aspect is streamlined, these Armor Refinements would be a very straightforward, intuative, welcome customization option for our armor.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Barry Gibb]

Barry, are you copy/pasting from somewhere? The posts are almost unreadable on the uo theme.
If you edit and use the 'remove formatting' eraser top left it will become readable in all themes.

I hit Reply on one of the quoted threads, Pasted that into MS Word (leaving its formatting alone). I drafted it up the rest of the post in MS Word, as I knew it would take me a while to get the charts together. I then pasted it into a Reply window in the forum, went to More Options and used Preview before I posted (do one last proofread). Then I hit the Post Reply button.

It did not look bad to me. I am using the black background, white text. Is that not the default? Is this the less prefered view, does it cause issues? How do i change it?

I tried to use the "eraser", but I can't tell if it worked.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[LordDrago]

I hit Reply on one of the quoted threads, Pasted that into MS Word (leaving its formatting alone). I drafted it up the rest of the post in MS Word, as I knew it would take me a while to get the charts together. I then pasted it into a Reply window in the forum, went to More Options and used Preview before I posted (do one last proofread). Then I hit the Post Reply button.

It did not look bad to me. I am using the black background, white text. Is that not the default? Is this the less prefered view, does it cause issues? How do i change it?

I tried to use the "eraser", but I can't tell if it worked.

Stayin Alive,

BG

Didn't see your post originally, but it looks good now. Excellent work.

 

[Petra Fyde]

I hit Reply on one of the quoted threads, Pasted that into MS Word (leaving its formatting alone). I drafted it up the rest of the post in MS Word, as I knew it would take me a while to get the charts together. I then pasted it into a Reply window in the forum, went to More Options and used Preview before I posted (do one last proofread). Then I hit the Post Reply button.

It did not look bad to me. I am using the black background, white text. Is that not the default? Is this the less prefered view, does it cause issues? How do i change it?

I tried to use the "eraser", but I can't tell if it worked.

Stayin Alive,

BG

yes, the eraser worked
Normally each theme has it's own 'default' text colour. MS word took the formatting from the theme you use and made it fixed, overriding the default of all other themes

No worries - I may have a better understanding of the forum's quirks but you're streets ahead of me when it comes to understanding this publish. I'm waiting for the 'for dummies' version

 

[Lore Denin (GL)]

This team is doing an excellent job at communication with this next publish. Sure there have been some bumps in the road. Sure there are things that I think need work. But they are finally making the most out of us, the free user jury.

Stayin Alive,

BG

Great post Barry. I think it sheds light on the HLD and DCI issue refinement creates. I am curious what solutions people are considering to the problem....

Does simply having a base DCI cap of 45 without allowing over capping. Then allow refinement to increase both cap and effective DCI fix the issue? I like this idea but I think you then need to allow refinement to work on all armor not just non-med.

Other thoughts/ideas on possible solutions (outside of scrapping refinement)?

 

[Barry Gibb]

Great post Barry. I think it sheds light on the HLD and DCI issue refinement creates. I am curious what solutions people are considering to the problem....

This thread has some ideas: http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/#post-2238049. The link takes you to Bleak's clarification. Earlier in the thread there is some speculation as to how it worked. Once the details were made clear, some of the smiles turned upside down (mine included).

Here is an idea from the team from that thread:

In order to remove Case#1 HLD would have to affect both the Max DCI cap and DCI.
Player A with 45 Max DCI and 70 DCI would be reduced to 25 Max DCI cap and 45 DCI.
Player A with 45 Max DCI and 0 DCI would be reduced to 25 Max DCI cap and -25 DCI.

Something I came up with (also in that thread):

Why not make HLD work just off the target's effective DCI, upto but not beyond their Max DCI cap? It does not have to affect the Max DCI cap, just ignore DCI values above the player Max DCI cap and treat them as the same value as the cap.

Bear with me, as I don't know how fractions are treated in the calculations.

Player C with 45 Max DCI and 35 DCI would be reduced to 19.25 DCI (=35*0.45), (Actual DCI < Max Cap).
Player C with 45 Max DCI and 45 DCI would be reduced to 24.75 DCI (=45*0.45), (Actual DCI = Max Cap).
Player C with 70 Max DCI and 70 DCI would be reduced to 38.50 DCI (=70*0.45), (Actual DCI = Max Cap).
Player C with 45 Max DCI and 70 DCI would be reduced to 24.75 DCI, (=45*0.45), (Actual DCI > Max Cap).

The HLD effect will always have an effect, since it cannot be negated through over-capping (this is an easy way to boost weapons for the revamp).

This will always award the player that traded off their resists for increased DCI. There will never be a scenario, such as Case #1, which gives greater benefit to those who have less. This is the sticking point for me. This scenario is counter intuitive and adds unnecessary complexity. It allows a player to bypass the trade-off for the new armor reinforcements. A player will need to use armor reinforcements AND DCI properties to raise their Max Cap AND actual DCI to 80 (80*0.45=44.00), in order to maintain the same 45 DCI through HLD provided by overcapping and not using armor enhancements. The player using armor reinforcements will also incur resist penalties, where as the over-capped player would not, which further reinforces the case in which which gives greater benefit to those who have less.

I do not know the feasibility of these ideas, but that determination/exploration is not in our hands.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Bleak]

This thread has some ideas: http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/#post-2238049. The link takes you to Bleak's clarification. Earlier in the thread there is some speculation as to how it worked. Once the details were made clear, some of the smiles turned upside down (mine included).

Here is an idea from the team from that thread:


Something I came up with (also in that thread):


I do not know the feasibility of these ideas, but that determination/exploration is not in our hands.

Stayin Alive,

BG

We will be addressing the DCI over capping issue based on the feedback provided.

 

[Barry Gibb]

We will be addressing the DCI over capping issue based on the feedback provided.

Thank you. I look forward to your changes. Please keep up the good work and pass this on to your entire team.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[chise2]

Super happy they are addressing the dci overcapping issue! Looking forward to this change.

 

[HP_Zoro_HP]

will stat requirement for dex ever be removed for parrying to be fully effective?

any chance we will get another skill cap boost in this next pub?

will the arcane circle issue be revamped since let's face it, we aren't playing prior to 2010 anymore so even less players to form at brit bank.

will bard masteries be revamped so that they would be more useful in a pvp environment, say 1v1 rather then cutting off as soon as you take 1 damage.

Ever consider implementing a spell that allows a player to take control of another "humanoid" or player/NPC for a temporary amount of time (like mind control or something)? Not like allowing them to undress or rummage through their bags or anything, but allow them to run around and attack for say 3-5 seconds before it breaks.

Why doesn't Telekenisis work on players/NPCs to maybe cause extra damage, bounce back effect or something atleast?

can we get an immunity timer after being hit with infectious strike so that it cannot immediately be re applied, kind of the same way we have a disarm timer?


Will slithers ever be able to summon creatures like totem of the voids when double clicked?

Since players can't cast stone walls on moongates (because of guard zone)... Will it ever be fixed so that players cannot cast it on the moongate on the star room? Maybe just me but I used to think blocking moongates was illegal but that there is used all the time.


If players will effectively be able to increase their total resists to what was it 75 straight across? Does this mean stone form will effectively increase a players resists to 80 straight across? Almost sounds like stone form is taking another nerf if they don't increase the resist cap that stone form gives if they are doing it already for players.

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

will stat requirement for dex ever be removed for parrying to be fully effective?

any chance we will get another skill cap boost in this next pub?

will the arcane circle issue be revamped since let's face it, we aren't playing prior to 2010 anymore so even less players to form at brit bank.

will bard masteries be revamped so that they would be more useful in a pvp environment, say 1v1 rather then cutting off as soon as you take 1 damage.

Ever consider implementing a spell that allows a player to take control of another "humanoid" or player/NPC for a temporary amount of time (like mind control or something)? Not like allowing them to undress or rummage through their bags or anything, but allow them to run around and attack for say 3-5 seconds before it breaks.

Why doesn't Telekenisis work on players/NPCs to maybe cause extra damage, bounce back effect or something atleast?

can we get an immunity timer after being hit with infectious strike so that it cannot immediately be re applied, kind of the same way we have a disarm timer?


Will slithers ever be able to summon creatures like totem of the voids when double clicked?

Since players can't cast stone walls on moongates (because of guard zone)... Will it ever be fixed so that players cannot cast it on the moongate on the star room? Maybe just me but I used to think blocking moongates was illegal but that there is used all the time.


If players will effectively be able to increase their total resists to what was it 75 straight across? Does this mean stone form will effectively increase a players resists to 80 straight across? Almost sounds like stone form is taking another nerf if they don't increase the resist cap that stone form gives if they are doing it already for players.

Wow.

Could you be more pro Warrior?

May as well just delete Magery from the game and call it Warriors Online if you have your way

 

[Logrus]

Bard Interrupt in PvP is 20 damage. Which usually means a 4th+ circle spell or an armor ignore.
(and that must be a single instance of 20 or more damage, getting hit for 15 from the swing and 7 from a hit spell effect wont do it)

@ Control Spells
Try the Dryad Allure spell. Makes em a nice pet.
Shifting client focus would probably be a huge undertaking. And I wouldn't want to see the bugs that could pop up.

 

[SpellBreaker]

We will be addressing the DCI over capping issue based on the feedback provided.

My vote - do not make stuff complicated.
Two methods of DCI + all the calculation + resources gathering + random crafting = simpler or more complicated?


Make armor more useful and do not like it to the new DCI method.


Thanks for asking for our feedback!




Spell Breaker

 

[RaistlinNowhere]

About the stam loss reduction and garg chars, what will happen? For char garg its impossible to get stam loss reduction cap, since they use only 4 metal pieces( earrings and collars doesnt count towards this) , and we need 5 pieces of metal to get the cap?

Are you going to doom melee garg chars? An easy solution i think is to give them something similar to humans bonus, lets call it "Strong wings"

 

[HP_Zoro_HP]

off topic and i'll probly be flamed for this but it just popped up in my head...

Taking World of Warcraft as an example, over the years has it made things more complicated or "easier" while still maintaining it's playerbase? Granted it's a more modern day game where as Ultima Online is 15 years old, but take that as a lesson and learn from what they've done. They didn't over complicate things and players will come and go but the more confusing things do get I would say the more players will go without coming back. Now as far as determining which piece of armor is better to wear... I personally think there should be something in place (and there may be.. just not in classic client) where you can hold your shift key, move ur cursor over a tunic for instance and it tell you what mods you will lose and gain (in 2 different colors to make it SIMPLER) kind of like World of Warcraft. Now i'm not saying turn UO into World of Warcraft, BUT there are some mechanics in that game that would be nice to have in UO such as that one that I just mentioned.

I just find it very strange I mean that UO is a 15 year old game and it's getting more complicated where as some of the more modern games that are vastly populated have actually become more SIMPLER... There can only be one winner in this situation and if you asked me i'd say it's the game that is keeping it's playerbase, hint hint.

 

[SpellBreaker]

Just and idea -

• Armor could be a skin choice
• All armor has 450/500 property value (pre pub 81)
• All materials have a mod + resist value that can be enhanced to the related armor i.e. ingots to metal items, leather to leather items, wood to wood items.
• Some mods could be the same but the resist value could be different i.e. verite & valorite could enhance +5 HCI and maintain the current bonus to resist value enhancements
• Leather & cloth = med-able
• Metal + wood + stone = non med-able but have XX% stamina protection

Could even add stamina protection as a imbuing option on leather just as mage armor is an option for metal armor types.


Spell Breaker

 

[SpellBreaker]

• Armor could be a skin choice
• All armor has 450/500 property value (pre pub 81)
• All materials have a mod + resist value that can be enhanced to the related armor i.e. ingots to metal items, leather to leather items, wood to wood items.
• Some mods could be the same but the resist value could be different i.e. verite & valorite could enhance +5 HCI and maintain the current bonus to resist value enhancements
• Leather & cloth = med-able
• Metal + wood + stone = non med-able but have XX% stamina protection

Could even add stamina protection as a imbuing option on leather just as mage armor is an option for metal armor types.

Another Idea to Expand on the above -

We are trying to find the balancing point in which metal, bone etc. armor become a viable option. The idea of adding a higher LMC cap is a fun idea however I would like to submit another option.


Lower Swing Speed on ALL Weapons
Instead of a LMC cap increase on some armor lets consider lowering the swing speed on all weapons. Warriors wont need a ton of stamina anymore thus allowing them to increase the mana pool on their suit. Even the slowest weapons could then be used at a cost to the mana pool.

Simple soltion that will address weapons, armor and the related mana issues for warriors. Of course we would need to find the sliding point for to large of a mana pool vs swing speed needed to use specials, ninja, bushido and chivalry skills.


Spell Breaker

 

[HP_Zoro_HP]

Another Idea to Expand on the above -

We are trying to find the balancing point in which metal, bone etc. armor become a viable option. The idea of adding a higher LMC cap is a fun idea however I would like to submit another option.


Lower Swing Speed on ALL Weapons
Instead of a LMC cap increase on some armor lets consider lowering the swing speed on all weapons. Warriors wont need a ton of stamina anymore thus allowing them to increase the mana pool on their suit. Even the slowest weapons could then be used at a cost to the mana pool.

Simple soltion that will address weapons, armor and the related mana issues for warriors. Of course we would need to find the sliding point for to large of a mana pool vs swing speed needed to use specials, ninja, bushido and chivalry skills.


Spell Breaker

I'm wondering if the reason they chose to go with the LMC route is because screwing with the swing speed makes it so warriors would hit or miss without having to use specials. LMC will just affect when they do specials but if you make it so their weapons are quicker that will affect them even if they have no mana because their normal hits will be quicker thus adding more damage per second(s) in the long run. Does that make sense?

I'm not trying to be like anti-warrior or anything but with these changes to well... WARRIOR weapons.... I'm kinda feeling a lack of love over here in the caster department.


When can we start imbuing or adding mods to our own robes that look so much nicer then garbs but due to the lack of DCI and mana regen have not been able to effectively use in PvM or PvP? Take for instance the 15th anny robe... Or an AOS robe.... Or say a golden robe crafted by someone? I just think itd be a neat idea to be able to imbue or add mods to robes, cloaks, and say half aprons since we already have artifacts that have the mods on them. Or even adding mods or imbuing mods to sandals/boots or even EARRINGS?

 

[KLOMP]

Lower Swing Speed on ALL Weapons

All the really slow weapons just may as well not even exist right now. They may have interesting combinations of specials, but if they have a base speed of 4 or something then it just doesn't matter. I don't know why they would change the specials on a war mace, for example. Who's going to use it?

I'm not saying the fast weapons need to be any faster, but the slow ones need to be faster, with lower damaga appropriate to their speed. Anything over 3.5 just isn't usable, no matter how interesting it might be otherwise.

And I don't know why taking five minutes to raise the resist bonuses on dragon scales to usable levels is verboten. It's just like... why wouldn't you?

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

Another Idea to Expand on the above -

We are trying to find the balancing point in which metal, bone etc. armor become a viable option. The idea of adding a higher LMC cap is a fun idea however I would like to submit another option.


Lower Swing Speed on ALL Weapons
Instead of a LMC cap increase on some armor lets consider lowering the swing speed on all weapons. Warriors wont need a ton of stamina anymore thus allowing them to increase the mana pool on their suit. Even the slowest weapons could then be used at a cost to the mana pool.

Simple soltion that will address weapons, armor and the related mana issues for warriors. Of course we would need to find the sliding point for to large of a mana pool vs swing speed needed to use specials, ninja, bushido and chivalry skills.


Spell Breaker

Bad idea that doesn't even make sense.

Why will warriors need less stamina? Because of your proposed "stam protection?"
Have you even been to felucca or pvped for more then 8 seconds?

Using slow weapons at a cost to the mana pool? What does this even mean?
Mana is not the issue at all with slow weps. Even assuming you meant that mana = more specs = more damage, it is ridiculous.

To sum up though your idea is to make warriors wear non med armor, take away the lmc bonus and reduce the swing speed on all weapons?

Congrats
You have just proposed the dumbest and most one-sided warrior nerf in the history of UO

 

[KLOMP]

I don't understand why they didn't just give nonmed armor an imbuing bonus, like they did two-handers, and call it a day.

Leather = Medable / no stam protection / 500 imbue cap
Studded = Nonmed / light stam protection / 550 imbue cap
Metal = Nonmed / full stam protection / 525 imbue cap

Then dexers all end up wearing nonmed, like we want, but... nobody is going over their LMC cap, the Mage Armor property doesn't have to change the category of the stuff it's on just to keep mages from being OP, the devs don't have to add a new item to scrub Mage Armor off dexer gear, nobody has to do any new math based on how many pieces of what gear they're wearing, so on and so forth.

Snap. Done. Takes fifteen minutes to code and 30 seconds to explain.

Like someone give me a design goal, even a fake design goal, that is better served by adding "inherent LMC" instead of just kicking up the imbue caps.

 

[Barry Gibb]

Another Idea to Expand on the above -

We are trying to find the balancing point in which metal, bone etc. armor become a viable option. The idea of adding a higher LMC cap is a fun idea however I would like to submit another option.


Lower Swing Speed on ALL Weapons
Instead of a LMC cap increase on some armor lets consider lowering the swing speed on all weapons. Warriors wont need a ton of stamina anymore thus allowing them to increase the mana pool on their suit. Even the slowest weapons could then be used at a cost to the mana pool.

Simple soltion that will address weapons, armor and the related mana issues for warriors. Of course we would need to find the sliding point for to large of a mana pool vs swing speed needed to use specials, ninja, bushido and chivalry skills.

Spell Breaker

While an intresting idea, I think this is a very round-about way of getting more mana, through essentailly adding more SSI (but to armors).

• More SSI > Less Dex/Stamina Needed > Shuffle Suit Around > Shuffle Stats Around > More Mana

versus the proposed approach, which is more direct:

• Free LMC = More Mana

Though you will still need to make armor with the proposed changes, it is worth pointing out that you can simply* make a copy (property wise) of the piece you are replacing to take advantage of the additional LMC. You would not need to shuffle around any Stamina Increase properties and replace them.

*Simply implies you already know what you want on the piece, because it is what you already have. I consider the time to actually craft the piece (once you know what you want) to be a wash between the two ideas above.


Concerning Mana, the trade-off between medable and non-medable armors is mana recovery (through meditation) versus mana cost (higher LMC). It is clear choice, since you cannot have both. Once you include additional elements (such as Dex and SSI), it increases the complexity of the change, which can more easily yield unbalancing, undesireable results. You may even see more mana intensive warrior templates (Spellweaving comes to mind), due to the free LMC and lower special move costs.

Regarding slower weapons, I think we would be better served if they added an ability which greatly increased the SSI an equipped weapon for a short time (similar to Divine Fury, but with only an SSI buff). It could be at the cost accuracy and defense, for the increased speed. It makes sense, since faster is not always better (try going fast hitting roofing nails, bring ice). A temporary effect is easier to manage/balance than a permanent raising of SSI. Problems arrise when the temporay effect can be used indefinitely, thus making it permanent.

Stayin Alive,

BG

 

[Goldberg-Chessy]

While an intresting idea, I think this is a very round-about way of getting more mana, through essentailly adding more SSI (but to armors).

• More SSI > Less Dex/Stamina Needed > Shuffle Suit Around > Shuffle Stats Around > More Mana

versus the proposed approach, which is more direct:

• Free LMC = More Mana

Though you will still need to make armor with the proposed changes, it is worth pointing out that you can simply* make a copy (property wise) of the piece you are replacing to take advantage of the additional LMC. You would not need to shuffle around any Stamina Increase properties and replace them.


*Simply implies you already know what you want on the piece, because it is what you already have. I consider the time to actually craft the piece (once you know what you want) to be a wash between the two ideas above.


Concerning Mana, the trade-off between medable and non-medable armors is mana recovery (through meditation) versus mana cost (higher LMC). It is clear choice, since you cannot have both. Once you include additional elements (such as Dex and SSI), it increases the complexity of the change, which can more easily yield unbalancing, undesireable results. You may even see more mana intensive warrior templates (Spellweaving comes to mind), due to the free LMC and lower special move costs.

Regarding slower weapons, I think we would be better served if they added an ability which greatly increased the SSI an equipped weapon for a short time (similar to Divine Fury, but with only an SSI buff). It could be at the cost accuracy and defense, for the increased speed. It makes sense, since faster is not always better (try going fast hitting roofing nails, bring ice). A temporary effect is easier to manage/balance than a permanent raising of SSI. Problems arrise when the temporay effect can be used indefinitely, thus making it permanent.

Stayin Alive,

BG

Huh?

- "More SSI > Less Dex/Stamina Needed > Shuffle Suit Around > Shuffle Stats Around > More Mana"

Where is more ssi coming from in Spell Breakers clueless scenario?

Please explain to me in detail how his scenario does not equal less ssi, no med, and no lmc bonus?

What is his upside lol? "stam protection"? That is laughable

 

[Lythos-]

Am i alone when i say i have no interest in refinements at all?

The whole system looks so confusing and complicated i honestly have no interest in testing or even using when it goes live.

 

[Kage]

1) "This coming from someone who has a thrower and 4 mages"
Spoony's own quote from this very thread. And he did quite obviously only voice his displeasure over the nerf when it was changed to also apply to mages.

2) Log onto Atl with your mage and fight any one of my warrior classes.
During the entire course of the fight you will not cast more then maybe 8 different spells.
Please spare me your 64 spell nonsense lol.
90% of so-called good mages don't even cast 8 spells. They cast curse, explo then spam fs. Maybe a small spell to try and finish. If they even have to cast heal or cure more then once they offscreen and rant that your temp is overpowered lol.
Ohh, my bad. Most of them also cast invis and protection lol. That's 8 total on a pure mage. What % of your 64 spells is that? Deal with it or come to Atl and prove me wrong.

3) Nice job showing how biased you are by actually trying to state that Curse is not overpowered at all.
I guess Throwers are not over powered at all either?
Nothing is over powered?

Ok, i've gotta ask. Who are your chars on atlantic?

He plays a blue thrower 99% of the time named Preacher. He is also known as Captain Trips he's pretty bad to be honest all he does is spam armor igorne & Mortal and if he fails to kill you he runs until he has full mana.