Specific situation of abuse of discording pets in PVP

[Aibal]

You switched positions, not me. I did actually "have the facts" that the person was dual clienting and you ignored this and went on with your own way to run 2 clients for this kind of thing. And in that position switch of yours, your way of avoiding officially "dual clienting" was to utilize a functionally unattended client on a seperate PC that was performing automated movement (auto-follow on a pet).

Now that I think about it, I know someone who had an account banned for what the GMs thought was exactly this kind of thing.

I don't think it will be productive for me to continue responding to you, given what I'm seeing in your posts to this point.

Obviously between the banned account and your guildies actions, it appears you need to pick friends who make better decisions. It puts the validity of your own comments/actions in question.

 

[ShaunOfPac]

No I don't have any input into what spells it uses, but I certainly control when it attacks, how it attacks, and how long it attacks for, and that is just as much "real" pvp as anything a mage or warrior does. I've already said this, but I'll say it again, as you don't seem to be getting the point.

You are casting the spells, or swinging that mace, your character is, you just instruct your character when and where to cast those spells, or swing that mace, which is exactly what a pvp tamer does with her pet. Yes they are played differently, and require different skills, but I guarantee you that I have invested just as much effort and just as many resources, and just as much skill as most elite pvp mages or warrior has, and probably more than most, into being a pvp tamer.

Have I invested as much as you specifically? Am I as skilled or as experienced as you are specifically? I have no idea, and that isn't the point here, the point here is that I have every bit as much right to be in pvp as you do, and have the right to all the same considerations that you do as well. You don't have to put up with a curse that drastically weakens the ability of your character to do damage as a mage or a warrior, without being able to respond to it in a guard zone, or take a murder count outside a guard zone, and tamers shouldn't have to either.



And I love how tamer haters always come back with, "I'm not a tamer hater, I have a tamer too." No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want them playing in the same playground as you. No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want to have any contact with them in what you claim is the "only reason" you play the game. Yes you have a tamer, but no you don't have much experience as a tamer in pvp, so it's pretty safe to say that I know quite a bit more about the challenges facing tamers in pvp, and the skills involved, than you do...

Actually, I used to LOVE when tamers would try to kill me. I would simply lure their pets away, para them, and then obliterate their owners. They would always have awesome loot on them too, and then I would dimply dispatch of their pets.

You've obviously never played a straight mage in PvP. I on the other hand, actually have used both. My tamer was used in my Order guild, and rarely would I ever use a pet. And when I did, it was only for dispatching gank squads that would mount up to take me down. You're making all your judgements based on the one char class you play.

 

[ShaunOfPac]

No I don't have any input into what spells it uses, but I certainly control when it attacks, how it attacks, and how long it attacks for, and that is just as much "real" pvp as anything a mage or warrior does. I've already said this, but I'll say it again, as you don't seem to be getting the point.

You are casting the spells, or swinging that mace, your character is, you just instruct your character when and where to cast those spells, or swing that mace, which is exactly what a pvp tamer does with her pet. Yes they are played differently, and require different skills, but I guarantee you that I have invested just as much effort and just as many resources, and just as much skill as most elite pvp mages or warrior has, and probably more than most, into being a pvp tamer.

Have I invested as much as you specifically? Am I as skilled or as experienced as you are specifically? I have no idea, and that isn't the point here, the point here is that I have every bit as much right to be in pvp as you do, and have the right to all the same considerations that you do as well. You don't have to put up with a curse that drastically weakens the ability of your character to do damage as a mage or a warrior, without being able to respond to it in a guard zone, or take a murder count outside a guard zone, and tamers shouldn't have to either.



And I love how tamer haters always come back with, "I'm not a tamer hater, I have a tamer too." No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want them playing in the same playground as you. No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want to have any contact with them in what you claim is the "only reason" you play the game. Yes you have a tamer, but no you don't have much experience as a tamer in pvp, so it's pretty safe to say that I know quite a bit more about the challenges facing tamers in pvp, and the skills involved, than you do...

And if you know anything about pvp, which you claim to do, you would know that mobility is king, and what a tamer with a greater dragon gains in offencive punch, she loses in mobility, and I'll repeat what I said before, even a player on foot can easily outrun a greater dragon. Yes fighting a tamer with a greater dragon requires changing your tactics, but no they aren't unbeatable, I see them beaten one on one all the time, and if you can't do it, perhaps you need some schooling...

BTW I'm not saying they're unbeatable, just that they take no skill whatsoever.

 

[Aibal]

And if you know anything about pvp, which you claim to do, you would know that mobility is king, and what a tamer with a greater dragon gains in offencive punch, she loses in mobility, and I'll repeat what I said before, even a player on foot can easily outrun a greater dragon. Yes fighting a tamer with a greater dragon requires changing your tactics, but no they aren't unbeatable, I see them beaten one on one all the time, and if you can't do it, perhaps you need some schooling...

Yes mobility IS king. However, it doesn't change my arguement. I've pvp'ed with gdrags, bug/mare comboes, bakes, etc. I have generally used the gdrags in spawns, and quite frankly I don't like them do to the mobility issues. However, to sit there and say that having a legendary magery drag (or close) coupled with a elder or above wrestling, coupled with a legendary magery/eval tamer controlling it is "balanced" pvp is laughable, in spite of the "mobility" issues. Personally, when I run a tamer on spawns or at the gate (very, very rarely), I'll use a pair of highly skilled and fully trained bakes, just my preference.

 

[Llewen]

BTW I'm not saying they're unbeatable, just that they take no skill whatsoever.

And I'm telling you you are dead wrong, just as most tamer haters are. It takes just as much skill to play a tamer well in pvp as it does any other template. Sure, it doesn't take any skill to play one badly, and the majority of those that attempt to play a tamer in pvp, play them badly. But it takes just as much skill to play a tamer well in pvp as it takes to play any other template well, and they have just as much a place in pvp as any other template.

So you can beat them, but you still think they should be nerfed or removed from pvp? So you really aren't interested in a fair fight, you just don't want to fight them at all. I'm glad we cleared that up. That is really what most tamer haters want, in fact most tamer haters don't want them only removed from pvp, they want them removed from the game period. The day they succeed in either of those goals is the day I leave UO permanently. So now you have something to aim for, if you can get rid of tamers, you can get rid of me...

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Yes, he made some good points about the dual clienting, and yes of course you would agree with him on everything else because he is a tamer hater just like you are.

Logic > Name calling.

You can call names all day but it won't change the fact that the reasons people dislike Tamers are all entirely accurate/legitimate. They have had in the time I've been playing more unique content than any other class, so with that in mind you'd think they'd be fairly happy. Are they? No, their the first ones on the boards everytime the slightest thing happens to them complaining about this and that and making demands on other classes usually for riddiculous reasons - as this whole thread attests to.

This thread equates to "My tamer shouldn't be negatively affected by a bard as thats my playstyle and I'm entitled to it - yet it's ok for everyone else to be negatively affected by me and my rule breaking pets and if they say otherwise they must just be tamer haters!"

You are entirely right, I do hate tamers (with endless good reasons) the difference is my reasons aren't biased. Tamers asking for changes to bard skills because it's the best shot anyone has of countering them, that is biased.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

And in that position switch of yours, your way of avoiding officially "dual clienting" was to utilize a functionally unattended client on a seperate PC that was performing automated movement (auto-follow on a pet).

From the sounds of it you weren't healing your pet so I guess your pet was also utilizing unattended automatic movement? Must've been, to be out of the gz.

 

[Revenant2]

The idea here though, is that a tamer with a gdrag (which is doing perhaps 80 HP fire breath) bolas a rider, who now has this drag on top of them. Furthermore, my own tamer (120 mage/eval/med) can be dropping spells on them as well, so essentially ONE individual is controlling two mages and a wrestling/dexxer. Yes, I can see how this is balanced.rolleyes:

And if you know anything about pvp, which you claim to do, you would know that mobility is king, and what a tamer with a greater dragon gains in offencive punch, she loses in mobility, and I'll repeat what I said before, even a player on foot can easily outrun a greater dragon. Yes fighting a tamer with a greater dragon requires changing your tactics, but no they aren't unbeatable, I see them beaten one on one all the time, and if you can't do it, perhaps you need some schooling...

I think we have at least 3 trolls in the thread now. They have worked to drag the original topic off course and interject what is clear sillyness to you, me, and others who can see the intended role Tamers take in the balance of modern UO PVP. These trolls apparently feel so l33t because they go around mage dueling each other and are too busy feeling their ub3r l33t skillz to come up for air.

This last post for example - - Aibal knows that the tamer does not truly control his superdragon. If the tamer did, the tamer's client would switch perspectives and he would really be using the pet and controlling it's spells, etc. Tamers who PVP know that "All kill" used at the wrong time actually means "Kill me, please", and Aibal surely knows this too. "All kill" sends the tamer's protection away.

Trying to explain something to people who feel too conceited to care is frequently a waste of time. One can say something once and they don't get it, and one can explain it again, and it's the same thing then, too. You can prove them wrong, and they pretend that you said something else.

Using a tamer and surviving on one is more about judgement of a situation than about figuring out which resist someone else is low in and working him over with the corresponding spells. But don't try to tell them that. They won't believe, understand, or respect that some templates weigh different aspects in different ways. They want all templates to work like theirs do, or else in their judgement there's no personal "skill" involved.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

It takes just as much skill to play a tamer well in pvp as it does any other template.

No it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination, pets are already at an advantage on hp, resists, casting while moving, breath/specials. Pets are basically super tanks thats before you take in to account what the player is doing, usually dismounting. The ONLY thing pets lose out on is mobility and you tip that balance in your favour when you've got ranged 80 damage firebreaths.

they have just as much a place in pvp as any other template.

Except bards right? Who should have to flag, stay in close quarters and have very little tanking ability.

So you really aren't interested in a fair fight, you just don't want to fight them at all.

Rofl, what exactly do you think is fair in a fight between a player and a greater dragon?

I'm glad we cleared that up. That is really what most tamer haters want, in fact most tamer haters don't want them only removed from pvp, they want them removed from the game period.

Yeah, and your a shining example as to why.

 

[Llewen]

You are entirely right, I do hate tamers (with endless good reasons) the difference is my reasons aren't biased.

That is, bar none, the funniest thing I've read in this thread yet!

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

I think we have at least 3 trolls in the thread now.

Yeah if troll is now defined as anyone who disagrees with a biased half-assed complaint thread.

They have worked to drag the original topic off course and interject what is clear sillyness to you, me, and others who can see the intended role Tamers take in the balance of modern UO PVP.

Tamers and balance have no place in the same sentance just as they have no place in PvP without effective counters.

This last post for example - - Aibal knows that the tamer does not truly control his superdragon.

No, but then they don't need to as the pets auto cast/follow/attack/toggle specials/breath.

"All kill" sends the tamer's protection away.

"All follow me" brings it back.

Trying to explain something to people who feel too conceited to care is frequently a waste of time.

Well, just jeep doing what your currently doing then, avoid all on topic comments that conflict with your biased crusade and label them all trolls.

 

[Aibal]

This last post for example - - Aibal knows that the tamer does not truly control his superdragon. If the tamer did, the tamer's client would switch perspectives and he would really be using the pet and controlling it's spells, etc. Tamers who PVP know that "All kill" used at the wrong time actually means "Kill me, please", and Aibal surely knows this too. "All kill" sends the tamer's protection away.

Using a tamer and surviving on one is more about judgement of a situation than about figuring out which resist someone else is low in and working him over with the corresponding spells. But don't try to tell them that. They won't believe, understand, or respect that some templates weigh different aspects in different ways. They want all templates to work like theirs do, or else in their judgement there's no personal "skill" involved.

LOL. Where do I start? By your own admission, "the tamer does not truly control his superdragon". Exactly. He/she simply sends a 80 hp ranged fire attack, 900+ hitpoint tank against a 120 hp, 20-40ish damage inflicting dexxer/mage. Uhhh, ok. Meanwhile your friends, I mean the tamer, sits there contemplating the complexity of his template lol.

Then there's the "using a tamer and surviving on one is more important about judgement than about figuring out which resist" blah, blah, blah.

Translation: Can my supertank kill them before they or their friends figure out I'm standing here all alone contemplating the difficulty of my template and waiting for my tank to finish doing the "tough" job and come kill me. Should I invis? Should I risk moving out further? lmao. Whatever.

FYI, I don't predominantly play a mage, but it IS one of my PvP mains. I also play a swords/parry/bush axer and a chiv archer. I won't argue the simpleness of two of those templates, the difference is NONE of them can do the damage a gdrag can in one hit, with a ranged attack, let alone throw two or three in a row from two screens away with 6/6 FC/FCR.

Bottom line, again, to make it CRYSTAL clear. Don't like the bard? Kill him. Don't want the count? Don't kill him. The choice is yours. In the meantime, no sense whining about something that isn't going to be changed (apparantly) any time soon.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

That is, bar none, the funniest thing I've read in this thread yet!

Yet but only because you're fairly stupid. I mean if you weren't you would have found the part where you were talking about 'fair fights' between a 1000 hp dragon and a 100 hp player much funnier.

You see it's very easy to toss around 'tamer hater' and 'troll' (see how easily I call you stupid - I don't even know you) but intelligent people could spot that I'm not the one coming on here trying to gain anything for myself and it is in that way which my views are not biased. The same can't be said for you or the OP who want bards to flag but have no actual power in fel.

 

[Llewen]

Yeah if troll is now defined as anyone who disagrees with a biased half-assed complaint thread.

If it posts like a troll... it probably is... a troll...

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

I avoid discussion

Well done troll.

 

[Wenchkin]

There was a blue tamer who went to Yew gate with a superdragon. A warrior saw this and duel cliented his blue bard and brought it. The dual-cliented bard would discord the pet (and not be flagged in any respect for this) and then he would set the duel cliented bard to auto follow the pet. He would then have his warrior running around with a dragon slayer weapon, and he was able to very quickly kill the superdragon in these conditions.

No single template of course carries full barding abilities plus full warrior abilities. To my knowledge it is cheating to duel client this way, but this kind of cheating does not seem stoppable in the current environment.

A character only needs music + disco to pull your pet down a notch, that leaves whatever template you like filling in the rest. Dual clienting is a very clumsy method, but it makes the bard easier to kill if they're not played actively. Be glad the bard isn't a second player with 2 trained pets, because then you'd really feel the heat.

It seems clear that discording a blue's pet must make the bard crim + aggro against both pet and owner, and discording a red's pet should be the same minus the crim flag. For it to be possible for a tamer to be in guardzone with a dual-cliented, auto-following, blue discorder attached to his pet makes no sense.

We've had variations of this request numerous times. In each case, it won't fix your problem to make a bard flag. I'd just stand a few tiles further back, wait for your pet to get out the GZ and wham. So what if I flag? I attack the pets immediately after discoing them, so I flag anyway. It doesn't stop me taking out a tamer's pet.

As it is now, outside of the guardzone, blues would have to take a count to remove the bard from the situation (and see, a discorded pet may still have what it takes to kill a bard but NOT the person's warrior). The pet won't attack the discorder automatically, which is also a complication. The dual clienting issue isn't all that significant in this determination but it's an example of the extent to which it can be abused right now.

If you made discording a pet result in said pet auto attacking the bard, be prepared to have a lot of bard tamers screaming blue murder at you. A lot of non PvP tamer bards use disco while training pets. They don't want their pets munching their backsides because of a tiny group of tamers who don't want to pick up a few murder counts. Why not just make friends with a red and point him in the direction of the bards?

Discord is to a tamer what an extreme but focused curse would be to a warrior or mage. Imagine if players could discord one another's combat skills, and then "kill" the player halfway in this state, so that his primary combat abilities were 0 and all he had was whatever parts of the template were left without his offense. Then, the player would then have to go get a partial ressurection to fix himself. This is precisely the situation that discord bards present for unmounted PVP tamers right now.

Disco does not reduce your pets to zero in anything. It doesn't even come close. If your pets were at 100+ in all skills before discording, they would still be more than strong enough for PvP. I've accidentally disco'd pets many times during a battle, none resulted in a catastrophe. If bards were that powerful, you'd hear cries of woe from every direction in the PvM ranks

If discord is to be able to work offensively against pets (which is in itself a question which could be considered seperately), it's clear that it must flag the bard appropriately.

How about a better solution, we take away the guardzone around Yew gate. Then, if tamers must fight outside the guardzone, you can ask for flagging of bards, because then you're not able to call guards if you get into trouble. That said the majority of tamers and bards play in Tram. They won't want a single side effect hitting them because a handful of tamers have bard problems.

It's clear to me, and several others, that a tamer who works well with the Yew guardzone can avoid death both of himself and his pets. While a bard can't disco the tamer, they can at least make pets easier to kill. If you can't handle that risk you can pop straight through the moongate to somewhere else, or just use a non tamer to PvP. A tamer shouldn't be in PvP if his pets dying is that great an issue.

Wenchy

 

[Llewen]

How about a better solution, we take away the guardzone around Yew gate. Then, if tamers must fight outside the guardzone, you can ask for flagging of bards, because then you're not able to call guards if you get into trouble.

Which was why I suggested that bards who attack pets should be flagged aggressor, not criminal. I'm not looking for anyone to do my dirty work for me, I just want the ability to fight back when I am attacked. Removing guard zones around moongates is a bad idea...

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Removing guard zones around moongates is a bad idea...

Yeah because tamers would all be promptly ganked and therefore removing guard zones wouldn't be in their intrest.

 

[Wenchkin]

And I love how tamer haters always come back with, "I'm not a tamer hater, I have a tamer too." No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want them playing in the same playground as you. No you aren't a tamer hater, you just don't want to have any contact with them in what you claim is the "only reason" you play the game. Yes you have a tamer, but no you don't have much experience as a tamer in pvp, so it's pretty safe to say that I know quite a bit more about the challenges facing tamers in pvp, and the skills involved, than you do...

Well Llewen, how about this... some tamers don't see every other tamer as 100% perfect. If we see someone acting like a jerk with pets in tow, we know that reflects on our reputations too. We know that jerk behaviour, regardless of template, is bad. So when we see some tamer standing at Yew gate killing one red after another till 5+ are dead, and nobody can attack tamer or pets inside that GZ, your darn right we'll go grab our bards and help the reds. Because we see 1 man ganks as just that. I'm no nicer to any template around Yew gate - if they act like jerks they don't deserve fair treatment.

I have no problem with a tamer in PvP if they are outside the guardzone. If I'm in Fel PvMing it's with a tamer, if I go to a champ or harry it's with my tamers. But if I suck (and I do) yet I can still score kills out in the open, I don't think you guys need it any easier around a guardzone.

And I'm telling you you are dead wrong, just as most tamer haters are. It takes just as much skill to play a tamer well in pvp as it does any other template. Sure, it doesn't take any skill to play one badly, and the majority of those that attempt to play a tamer in pvp, play them badly. But it takes just as much skill to play a tamer well in pvp as it takes to play any other template well, and they have just as much a place in pvp as any other template.

So you can beat them, but you still think they should be nerfed or removed from pvp? So you really aren't interested in a fair fight, you just don't want to fight them at all. I'm glad we cleared that up. That is really what most tamer haters want, in fact most tamer haters don't want them only removed from pvp, they want them removed from the game period. The day they succeed in either of those goals is the day I leave UO permanently. So now you have something to aim for, if you can get rid of tamers, you can get rid of me...

Ok, so if I was the Yew gate tamer and you were on the other side of the moongate, how would you fight back and kill me and my pets? It's not about removing pets from PvP with me, it's about balance. It's about the non tamer having a chance, a tactic they can employ to respond to your tamer/pets. Because I don't think a PvPer really wants to dual client with their bard, if there was a viable other tactic they could employ. You're saying you can PvP well with a tamer, so by that token you're aware of your weaknesses. Inside the Yew gate guardzone, if I don't have a bard, how do I kill you? Because if disco is the only way, it shouldn't be changed. So you've got good incentive to come up with something

Wenchy

 

[Wenchkin]

Removing guard zones around moongates is a bad idea...

Why? If we made it so there was say a 10 second protection when you first came through a gate to protect players till they come through, the gate isn't necessary otherwise. Its only other "use" is for a small huddle of players I sometimes see who stand yelling guards constantly. Their annoyance level is pretty high There are other guardzones, and houses around the gate also offer protection to PvPers.

Wenchy

 

[Aibal]

Wenchy, you make several very valid points. I don't need to tell you this, as I'm sure you already know. Rev2 and Llewen aren't interested in balance, fair PvP, which is why they will be silent on responding to your question about bringing tactical balance to the guard zone for other players to attack them. Same with the elimination of the guard zone entirely. Doing either serves to make them less immune, which isn't in the best interest of their playstyle.

 

[Revenant2]

There was a blue tamer who went to Yew gate with a superdragon. A warrior saw this and duel cliented his blue bard and brought it. The dual-cliented bard would discord the pet (and not be flagged in any respect for this) and then he would set the duel cliented bard to auto follow the pet. He would then have his warrior running around with a dragon slayer weapon, and he was able to very quickly kill the superdragon in these conditions.

No single template of course carries full barding abilities plus full warrior abilities. To my knowledge it is cheating to duel client this way, but this kind of cheating does not seem stoppable in the current environment.

A character only needs music + disco to pull your pet down a notch, that leaves whatever template you like filling in the rest. Dual clienting is a very clumsy method, but it makes the bard easier to kill if they're not played actively. Be glad the bard isn't a second player with 2 trained pets, because then you'd really feel the heat.

It's not right to describe discording a pet as pulling the pet down a notch, its more severe than that. In my experience it turns the pet into a near-useless piece of garbage. It's resists, defense chance, hit chance, and magery level turn to crap. Discorded pets are very different from their normal form.

It wouldn't matter if the auto-following discorder had pets following along behind it. The guy and his pets are blue and a blue tamer can't attack them without potentially taking a count (IE - - original point - - aggro and crim flag are needed).

Imagine if a blue necro could tag along behind a pet spamming Evil Omen on it constantly, without flagging. Or if a mage could spam an extra-powerful curse with no flag. It's as clear in those cases as it is in this one.

It seems clear that discording a blue's pet must make the bard crim + aggro against both pet and owner, and discording a red's pet should be the same minus the crim flag. For it to be possible for a tamer to be in guardzone with a dual-cliented, auto-following, blue discorder attached to his pet makes no sense.

We've had variations of this request numerous times. In each case, it won't fix your problem to make a bard flag. I'd just stand a few tiles further back, wait for your pet to get out the GZ and wham. So what if I flag? I attack the pets immediately after discoing them, so I flag anyway. It doesn't stop me taking out a tamer's pet.

But what you're describing DOES fix the issue. And, it sounds like in your case, you're not abusing the ability that exists right now to have one char acting as a blue discorder semi-permanently attached to somebody's pet. You've described putting the bard skills onto the fighter template and using it that way. You would be mostly unaffected by the change because you're already doing it in a way that makes sense.

The issue I'm bringing up here is not the way right now that a discorded pet is a big piece of poop that can be torn apart in no time at all (although it's possible to bring this up and consider it, it's a seperate topic). The problem is that the beginning of this process, the discording, can be done by a blue, even in guard zone, and no crim or aggro flag is applied for it.

I believe that a mage walking up and cursing a blue's pet in guardzone, or cursing that blue himself, would get that mage guardwhacked. Curse is a spell which negatively impacts you or your pet and as such is treated that way. If a bard could discord a person, the impact would of course be the same and UO would already handle it right.

It's a clear oops that a bard can walk up and discord a pet and not have the same thing happen. The case for this seems clear enough that I wouldnt be surprised to see them roll it into an update in the somewhat near future, and they wouldn't necessarily bother to justify it or listen to the whining.

As it is now, outside of the guardzone, blues would have to take a count to remove the bard from the situation (and see, a discorded pet may still have what it takes to kill a bard but NOT the person's warrior). The pet won't attack the discorder automatically, which is also a complication. The dual clienting issue isn't all that significant in this determination but it's an example of the extent to which it can be abused right now.

If you made discording a pet result in said pet auto attacking the bard, be prepared to have a lot of bard tamers screaming blue murder at you. A lot of non PvP tamer bards use disco while training pets. They don't want their pets munching their backsides because of a tiny group of tamers who don't want to pick up a few murder counts. Why not just make friends with a red and point him in the direction of the bards?

Two points on the pet training: Discord training pets is a secondary caveat of the discord ability. It's main design is of an offensive nature. Under the current AI, the pet owner would just put the pet into passive mode and it wouldn't respond to the "attack" of the discorder any more than it would any other attack.

Describing the situation as a tamer not being willing to pick up a few counts isn't realistic. It's not like you kill the bard once and he doesn't come back for at least 2 days (which is how long it would take you to work off the count from killing him that one time). He would come back over, and over, and over again. You cannot go about killing blue bards like this on a blue tamer. Your tamer will end up red if you do, and unless all tamers are intended by the game to be red, being expected to take counts on bards isn't a reasonable expectation.

Discord is to a tamer what an extreme but focused curse would be to a warrior or mage. Imagine if players could discord one another's combat skills, and then "kill" the player halfway in this state, so that his primary combat abilities were 0 and all he had was whatever parts of the template were left without his offense. Then, the player would then have to go get a partial ressurection to fix himself. This is precisely the situation that discord bards present for unmounted PVP tamers right now.

Disco does not reduce your pets to zero in anything. It doesn't even come close. If your pets were at 100+ in all skills before discording, they would still be more than strong enough for PvP. I've accidentally disco'd pets many times during a battle, none resulted in a catastrophe. If bards were that powerful, you'd hear cries of woe from every direction in the PvM ranks

I wasn't clear enough in this explanation. The discord allows the pet to be killed easily. After the pet is dead, the tamer is in a situation where it is like the player is killed halfway "so that his primary combat abilities were 0 and all he had was whatever parts of the template were left without his offense." etc.

But also, a discorded pet is horrible at PVP in my experience. A discorded pet superdragon can be ripped apart inside of 20 seconds by the right templates and weapons, and 120 vet can't keep up with the damage. I'm not exaggurating.

If discord is to be able to work offensively against pets (which is in itself a question which could be considered seperately), it's clear that it must flag the bard appropriately.

How about a better solution, we take away the guardzone around Yew gate. Then, if tamers must fight outside the guardzone, you can ask for flagging of bards, because then you're not able to call guards if you get into trouble. That said the majority of tamers and bards play in Tram. They won't want a single side effect hitting them because a handful of tamers have bard problems.

They can't take the guard zone away from the moongates in the current situation. Even if they did, it doesn't settle this problem or balance anything. This behavior isn't limited to Yew gate, it works the same everywhere.

This change wouldn't affect Trammel to speak of. The Trammel ruleset already treats Discord like the offensive act that it is and won't allow you to discord non-guildies pets (similar to how you cannot use detect hidden against players). The only changes would be that in Tram, among guildies, it would be necessary to put pets into passive mode before discording them for training, and also, any accidental discording of pets would cause the pets to act like the person had cast a nasty spell on them (which the bard did essentially do, so.... yeah).

It's clear to me, and several others, that a tamer who works well with the Yew guardzone can avoid death both of himself and his pets. While a bard can't disco the tamer, they can at least make pets easier to kill. If you can't handle that risk you can pop straight through the moongate to somewhere else, or just use a non tamer to PvP. A tamer shouldn't be in PvP if his pets dying is that great an issue.

On the contrary... The pet being alive occupies at least 200 skill points on the tamer's template, or over 300 if it's a fully-functional tamer with vet. Removing the thing that occupies 200-300 skillpoints (killing that pet) SHOULD make a huge difference to that char, and it does. It should be as bad as taking away a Necromage's necro regs (Necro/Spirit Speak/Med), or taking away a warrior's weapon skill + his tactics, or taking away a Mage's mage regs (Magery/Eval/Med).

And, it is this bad, and in some cases worse. If the tamer chose to go out with 5 control slots worth of pets taken up and isn't using skill points on Ninja, he cannot move at mounted speed, even after the pets are dead. At least a reagent-less mage could technically be mounted and run away with his tail between his legs, a pet-less Tamer cannot necessarily even do that.

 

[prison bound]

so many people complaining about pets in pvp.... if you cant deal with it, you shouldnt be playing. adapt and live or stagnate and die... its not gonna change

 

[Llewen]

Wenchy, you make several very valid points. I don't need to tell you this, as I'm sure you already know. Rev2 and Llewen aren't interested in balance, fair PvP, which is why they will be silent on responding to your question about bringing tactical balance to the guard zone for other players to attack them. Same with the elimination of the guard zone entirely. Doing either serves to make them less immune, which isn't in the best interest of their playstyle.

Nonsense. Getting rid of the guard zone eliminates the only pvp in UO where a person who is wildly outnumbered, no matter what template they play, has a chance. Getting rid of the guard zone around moongates ensures that the side that can manage the most effective gank, ie. has the advantage in numbers and knows how to use it, will always win. It's a stupid idea.

If I want that kind of pvp, I can go do a spawn. I'm not saying that spawn pvp is no good, quite the contrary, it is probably the "purest" all round pvp in the game because there are no arbitrary rules or guard zones, or houses, and anything goes. However, for me specifically, I don't always have twelve guild mates on to back me up so I can go do a spawn, the guard zone at Yew gate allows me to go have some fun pvp'ing, without having to first collect my twelve friends.

Yew gate is also the best place for a player that is new to pvp to go get a taste of their first hostile pvp, it is a great training ground. Getting rid of the guard zone would completely kill pvp at Yew gate, or any gate, which I suppose is the point, but it is a bad idea.

And for the record, the discussion going on here is perfectly legitimate, and most of it is fairly well mannered. Yes there has been some trolling, but that is a bit hard to avoid given some of the mentalities involved... This thread should never have been moved. Another fine example of Stratics' overbearing moderation...

 

[Llewen]

I avoid discussion

Well done troll.

GOD, most of your "points" are either ridiculous, and thus extremely hard to refute without falling into a ridiculous "I'M RIGHT/YOU'RE WRONG" argument, dishonest, and thus extremely hard to refute without falling into a ridiculous "I'M RIGHT/YOU'RE WRONG" argument, or are simply a rehash of points I have already responded to elsewhere, and if you didn't get my argument last time, you aren't likely to get it if I repeat myself. So no, I'm not going to waste my time responding to all your points. Your bias is clear, and for the most part you aren't worth responding to.

 

[Aibal]

Well then, how about we have a "squelch" effect in the GZ. When in it, you cannot talk, cannot issue commands. You must exit GZ to do that. Also, if you attack ANY character, red or blue, you are expelled from the GZ for the duration of the fight, and cannot return until either you or your opponent is dead or unflagged. That will allow new players to come and watch, perhaps even participate, while staying "safe". It will prevent gate ganks. It will keep "tamers" from sitting there saying all kill, and then hiding in the GZ. When they DO attack, they are forced OUT of the safety zone. Will that work for you? Because otherwise sitting there and saying all kill from the safety of the GZ is, has, and always will be.......

 

[Llewen]

Well then, how about we have a "squelch" effect in the GZ. When in it, you cannot talk, cannot issue commands. You must exit GZ to do that. Also, if you attack ANY character, red or blue, you are expelled from the GZ for the duration of the fight, and cannot return until either you or your opponent is dead or unflagged. That will allow new players to come and watch, perhaps even participate, while staying "safe". It will prevent gate ganks. It will keep "tamers" from sitting there saying all kill, and then hiding in the GZ. When they DO attack, they are forced OUT of the safety zone. Will that work for you? Because otherwise sitting there and saying all kill from the safety of the GZ is, has, and always will be.......

Ridiculous, but it would be somewhat fair if the same was applied to houses. Ganking is also , house fighting is also , unreasoning prejudice is also ...

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Except bias would involve me getting something out of it, which I don't - as I already explained (which you clearly haven't understood), unlike you and the OP who would get something highly beneficial to yourselfs if what he asked for went in. You fail to realise your the one being a biased hypocrite, just like you fail to realise your new sig makes you look like you both agree with me and discredits your own posts.

The reason you can't argue with what I've said isn't because I'm trolling, because I hate tamers or any other of your trolling name calling methods, it is because you are being biased as several people have pointed out to you.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

unreasoning prejudice is also ...

Prejudice has plenty of reason but you probably can't hear it over all your name calling/trolling.

 

[Aibal]

But the thing is, by your own admission, you want to be able to go there without guildies, sit in the guard zone, and "pvp". I'm saying that's not pvp, that's guard hugging lame tactics. The only "danger" is exposed to your overpowered pet, while you sit safely in the GZ.

I already mentioned much earlier in this thread that house hiding, ganking, etc. were lame. The thing is, that's NOT part of this thread. Start another one about that. This thread is about bards (originally) and a tamer crying because his pet was being discoed while he camped the guard zone looking for a gank kill. It's kind of hard to discuss solving the problem, when, as God has mentioned, your bias doesn't allow you to SEE that it's a problem, and wholly unbalanced.

 

[Llewen]

And at this point the discussion has degraded into, "I'm not a troll, you're a troll, I'm not biased, you're biased, I'm not lame, you're lame, I'm right you're wrong," and there is no point in continuing the discussion. I'm sure we'll have a chance to revisit this at some point in the future, meanwhile, if I see you flagged at Yew gate in Catskills, and I know who you are, you're a dead troll if I have anything to say about it... and there's a real good chance it won't be a dragon that gets you...

 

[CroakerTnT]

Discording, peacing, or provoing a pet should flag the bard, unless the pet is a pet of a guildmate or alliance member.

 

[Aibal]

But also, a discorded pet is horrible at PVP in my experience. A discorded pet superdragon can be ripped apart inside of 20 seconds by the right templates and weapons, and 120 vet can't keep up with the damage. I'm not exaggurating.

Ridiculous. A good PvP gdrag, that will likely have well in excess of 120-125 wrestle, 115+ magery and 115+ eval will disco down to around mid to high 90's on magery and over around 90 ish on the other two. He will lose no hit points, no stat loss. Therefore, he will still have 900+ hit points to give, and will still have a formidable skillset. He isn't going to die in under twenty seconds, especially with you vetting him. Sorry, I ain't buying what you're selling there.

Again, as I said earlier, kill the bard. If not, leave the zone and head out, set up shop, and have it. I'd be willing to bet the minute you stopped hugging the GZ, the bard would be pulled as the owner wouldn't want to be killed himself in Fel on a blue bard that had little hope for survival. Have you tried that tactic yet?

 

[Llewen]

But also, a discorded pet is horrible at PVP in my experience. A discorded pet superdragon can be ripped apart inside of 20 seconds by the right templates and weapons, and 120 vet can't keep up with the damage. I'm not exaggurating.

Ridiculous. A good PvP gdrag, that will likely have well in excess of 120-125 wrestle, 115+ magery and 115+ eval will disco down to around mid to high 90's on magery and over around 90 ish on the other two. He will lose no hit points, no stat loss. Therefore, he will still have 900+ hit points to give, and will still have a formidable skillset. He isn't going to die in under twenty seconds, especially with you vetting him. Sorry, I ain't buying what you're selling there.

He's right, unlike you, he actually knows what he is talking about. A discorded dragon will have skills ranging between 70 and 90 - and that is a good discorded dragon, and resists will be very heavily reduced (I don't know the exact numbers but it will be at least 20 points) which will bring the lowest resists down into the low 30's, or lower. A discorded greater dragon can easily die in under 20 seconds to a well equipped, advanced dexxer with a dragon or reptile slayer.

 

[CKTC]

Your wrong on lots of stuff there lewen but regardless of that their breath isnt effected by it so their still going to be able to hit well over 70 thats on top of whatever attacks the player does. Aint any players doing that damage to each other in one hit so why the hell should you.

GOD you could word things a little less hostile towards tamers lol, but i mostly agree with you, his sigs gonna look kinda stupid in other threads so i wouldnt worry about that.

Anyway back on topic, i dont see how you can claim that this is in anyway unfair or cheating. You didnt have to leave the guardzone you chose to! with a discd pet no one to blame there but you and im seriously against nerfing a bard skill for such a dumb reason.

 

[Wenchkin]

It's not right to describe discording a pet as pulling the pet down a notch, its more severe than that. In my experience it turns the pet into a near-useless piece of garbage. It's resists, defense chance, hit chance, and magery level turn to crap. Discorded pets are very different from their normal form.

You did read the bit where I mentioned that I have a disco tamer? I use the skill, I know what it does, both to mobs and my pets. I use it on pets during training. A fully trained pet, even disco'd can still fight. Mine do, and they're far from "trained". And that's before I suggest you use your tamer's other skills to help the pet out.

It wouldn't matter if the auto-following discorder had pets following along behind it. The guy and his pets are blue and a blue tamer can't attack them without potentially taking a count (IE - - original point - - aggro and crim flag are needed).

So take a count. Call a red friend. Both of those would work. If you think it's a bummer deal, consider how frustrating it is to be a red when a tamer jumps him from inside the guardzone. That's not fun either...

Imagine if a blue necro could tag along behind a pet spamming Evil Omen on it constantly, without flagging. Or if a mage could spam an extra-powerful curse with no flag. It's as clear in those cases as it is in this one.

The difference being that discordance does zero damage. Yes it affects your pets, but it won't kill you or damage your pets in itself. It's the follow up attacks which kill your pets. The players who attack your pets would be appropriately flagged for you to attack them.

It seems clear that discording a blue's pet must make the bard crim + aggro against both pet and owner, and discording a red's pet should be the same minus the crim flag.

It is not clear. I've asked in this thread already how we're supposed to attack and kill a tamer or his pets inside the guardzone, and after asking that at least 4 times in different threads, I've yet to get any answer. Answer that and you can then suggest flagging bards. You want to get this change which benefits a tiny group of players, yet seem oblivious to the effects it will have on some of us who play good decent tamers and bards. PvMers didn't want to be affected by petball changes, they won't want to be flagging for accidentally discoing a pet either.

Have you considered the disco/provo bard who doesn't want spawn flagging aggressive between his disco and provo? It's tricky enough sometimes without flagging, but to flag once with disco then again with provo would make working with high end spawn pretty darn hazardous. I'm fortunate my bard has pets too, but for me, that would remove most if not all the fun of barding.

But what you're describing DOES fix the issue. And, it sounds like in your case, you're not abusing the ability that exists right now to have one char acting as a blue discorder semi-permanently attached to somebody's pet. You've described putting the bard skills onto the fighter template and using it that way. You would be mostly unaffected by the change because you're already doing it in a way that makes sense.

Ok, remove auto follow. That also fixes your dual client problem without touching barding.

The problem is that the beginning of this process, the discording, can be done by a blue, even in guard zone, and no crim or aggro flag is applied for it.

See above, tell me how you or your pets can be killed without the bard, when you're in a guardzone, then the conversation can progress.

I believe that a mage walking up and cursing a blue's pet in guardzone, or cursing that blue himself, would get that mage guardwhacked. Curse is a spell which negatively impacts you or your pet and as such is treated that way. If a bard could discord a person, the impact would of course be the same and UO would already handle it right.

Who said EA applied logic? I'd rather they both followed the same rules too, but I wouldn't be applying them as you would.

It's a clear oops that a bard can walk up and discord a pet and not have the same thing happen. The case for this seems clear enough that I wouldnt be surprised to see them roll it into an update in the somewhat near future, and they wouldn't necessarily bother to justify it or listen to the whining.

Ok, do a rough guess how many players are one of the following:
Pure bards
Tamer bards
Other combos of disco and provo or peace
Friends of the above who train pets with a bard friend.

Then tell me that number is less than the number of players who want to take a tamer and PvP in Fel, specifically Yew gate, as that's where the problem is fighting said tamers. All of those player templates above would be affected depending on the extent of the change you propose. Very few of them are even venturing into Fel. Not only are they unlikely to support you, they'd rightfully scream blue murder if your suggested change resulted in a sizeable impact on their gameplay.

Two points on the pet training: Discord training pets is a secondary caveat of the discord ability. It's main design is of an offensive nature. Under the current AI, the pet owner would just put the pet into passive mode and it wouldn't respond to the "attack" of the discorder any more than it would any other attack.

Why should I have to start recommanding pets at all though? That's presuming that bards can be flagged and not attacked by their targets. Add in the latter and pet training is the least of my concerns. Either way, you remember how much players complained about the proposals of changing pet balls? About a few seconds delay in some cases? Players still won't like to be inconvenienced. Especially if that inconvenience to them means a tamer at Yew gate becomes way too powerful.

Describing the situation as a tamer not being willing to pick up a few counts isn't realistic. It's not like you kill the bard once and he doesn't come back for at least 2 days (which is how long it would take you to work off the count from killing him that one time). He would come back over, and over, and over again. You cannot go about killing blue bards like this on a blue tamer. Your tamer will end up red if you do, and unless all tamers are intended by the game to be red, being expected to take counts on bards isn't a reasonable expectation.

I've lived in Fel all my UO life, please don't tell me how it works This is why I suggested also befriending a red, who doesn't care for counts, and would take care of bards if you were on his "team".

I wasn't clear enough in this explanation. The discord allows the pet to be killed easily. After the pet is dead, the tamer is in a situation where it is like the player is killed halfway "so that his primary combat abilities were 0 and all he had was whatever parts of the template were left without his offense." etc.

But if you were just a player on your own, you'd be in deep doodah there as well though. There are some situations where you're fooked, which is when you either flee, team up or move on to the next fight. Tamers are no different in that respect.

They can't take the guard zone away from the moongates in the current situation. Even if they did, it doesn't settle this problem or balance anything. This behavior isn't limited to Yew gate, it works the same everywhere.

But the tamers who pick off targets while cosy in a guardzone are limited to Yew gate. Those would be forced to fight in the open, and if they were, I have much less problem with flagging a bard. But it absolutely must be restricted to allowing a tamer to attack a bard and nothing else. That I have no issue with, if no gates are in guardzone, because the bard can flag without making the tamer too powerful. Changing it without removing the moongate would just be a joke.

This change wouldn't affect Trammel to speak of. The Trammel ruleset already treats Discord like the offensive act that it is and won't allow you to discord non-guildies pets (similar to how you cannot use detect hidden against players). The only changes would be that in Tram, among guildies, it would be necessary to put pets into passive mode before discording them for training, and also, any accidental discording of pets would cause the pets to act like the person had cast a nasty spell on them (which the bard did essentially do, so.... yeah).

Again, I've got 2 tamer bards, I do know how the skills work over both facets. But if you think EA would put in a very specific bit of coding for a tiny handful of players, I think you're optomistic. I'd suggest they'd slap in a bandie fix which fooked up taming bards period. And made tamers too powerful around Yew gate if they left the guardzone. I've played UO long enough to know about EA's "fixes" and "re-balancing".

On the contrary... The pet being alive occupies at least 200 skill points on the tamer's template, or over 300 if it's a fully-functional tamer with vet. Removing the thing that occupies 200-300 skillpoints (killing that pet) SHOULD make a huge difference to that char, and it does. It should be as bad as taking away a Necromage's necro regs (Necro/Spirit Speak/Med), or taking away a warrior's weapon skill + his tactics, or taking away a Mage's mage regs (Magery/Eval/Med).

I use between 360 and 460 points for taming skills, depending on whether I employ herding or not. It doesn't stop me casting or stealthing. Yeah I'm not at full power if my pets die, but sitting duck? Nah. At worst I can get out alive, res pets in safety and return to the fight if I choose. You can say you're using 300 skill points, but that's less than half your template. A PvP tamer may also drop vet, thus allowing more skill to be employed elsewhere.

Wenchy

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

GOD you could word things a little less hostile towards tamers lol, but i mostly agree with you, his sigs gonna look kinda stupid in other threads so i wouldnt worry about that.

Fair enough. I'll stop being hostile towards tamers when tamers stop asking for nerfs for skills other than their own.

I'm not worried about it lol, he's advertising something I've posted in pretty much every thread about tamers anyway. He even PM'd me to boast about it like some little kid, I pointed out why it's not exactly having the effect he thinks it is but well, I won't hold my breath for him understanding that anytime soon. Until then it just spreads the message

 

[Aibal]

He's right, unlike you, he actually knows what he is talking about. A discorded dragon will have skills ranging between 70 and 90 - and that is a good discorded dragon, and resists will be very heavily reduced (I don't know the exact numbers but it will be at least 20 points) which will bring the lowest resists down into the low 30's, or lower. A discorded greater dragon can easily die in under 20 seconds to a well equipped, advanced dexxer with a dragon or reptile slayer.

Speaking of being wrong, the only one who has no idea what they are talking about is you. A fully trained gdragon, when discoed, will be absolutely no lower than 72 in ANY skill, as it is a 28% drop there Llewen. Max. If he is GM in skills, that is 72. If he is at say, 122 magery, that runs around 93ish or so, like I said. It could still be close to GM on wrestling. Same with the other skills (eval and tactics). I disco pets all the time for training purposes. If I recall, the resist maxes are around 85/90/60/60/75, so if we knock 5 off of each for ****s and giggles, and disco it, we have somwhere around 52/57/27/27/42. Now honestly there, oh guru of pvp, how many dexxers attack with cold damage weaps? Poison isn't likely to kill them. Most come with a physical attack....I'll give you that some "might" use CW, but it's funny, that is a spell that most dexxers I see choose not to use or forget to use. Bottom line, even with a dragon slayer, if Rev is vetting as he says, they aren't going to kill it in under 20 seconds. We'll agree to disagree here. Next time, instead of the insults, apply logic. For being so quick to tell me I have no clue wtf I'm talking about, it's you that has no clue what the effect is. Bottom line...if it's a GOOD PvP gdrag, discoing it is gonna weaken it, but it is in no manner going to inhibit it's ability to still do some serious damage.

Answer me this bright one....if the gdrags aren't totally overpowered in PvP, WHY, WHY, WHY, did I see every PvP guild on three shards totally overwhelming their spawn spots the first month making sure they all got them? Why do I still see GOOD PvP gdrags sell for 15-20 mill gold, the highest price pet next a blaze cu. Yeah, they're not overpowered.

 

[CKTC]

Fair enough. I'll stop being hostile towards tamers when tamers stop asking for nerfs for skills other than their own.

hahah thats fits with the theme of things not to hold your breath for

--
lewen...

unlike you, he actually knows what he is talking about.

(I don't know the exact numbers...)

then stfu until you do, your ignorant ass comments have plauged no ends of threads your always trolling at least wenchy god and aibals posts were on topic and informed, that is until you started posting your nonsense again.

 

[galefan2004]

This is coming from a tamer...

Pets have NO place AT ALL in PvP. Yes, that means that tamers are a PvM only template. Sorry, but having your pet discorded is just a work around to the insanity of being able to kill everyone with just a bola, a greater dragon, and the all kill command. Its lame, and it should be addressed.

 

[galefan2004]

Just curious as to how you know they were duel clienting? I stopped reading your post there because u have no proof so the rest of your post was pntless. I myself have my laptop as well as my pc that are able to play uo and i often use my tamer to res my pet or help at dh while im using my sampire.

That is dual clienting by the definition normally accepted in the industry (playing two characters at once). They never once said that they were using illegal programs to run two clients on the same PC (which if its possible to do this legally in DAoC explain why its not possible to do it legally in UO).

I've never duel cliented but i have 2 comps running. So before you go crying hes cheating find out that hes actually cheating.

I didn't read it as an accusation at all...just a statement.

Also you wont find sympathy here that your uber im so leet all kill super dragon couldnt kill something.

Agreed...and thats coming from a tamer. If you want to PvP then go make a character that can actually kill something without the use of a pet. There are plenty of templates for this, and you those should be the allowable templates in PvP. With all the issues with tamers in PvP over the years it would probably be easier if they just made it so that pets refused to attack other players (that includes summons).

 

[Llewen]

He's right, unlike you, he actually knows what he is talking about. A discorded dragon will have skills ranging between 70 and 90 - and that is a good discorded dragon, and resists will be very heavily reduced (I don't know the exact numbers but it will be at least 20 points) which will bring the lowest resists down into the low 30's, or lower. A discorded greater dragon can easily die in under 20 seconds to a well equipped, advanced dexxer with a dragon or reptile slayer.

Speaking of being wrong, the only one who has no idea what they are talking about is you. A fully trained gdragon, when discoed, will be absolutely no lower than 72 in ANY skill, as it is a 28% drop there Llewen. Max. If he is GM in skills, that is 72. If he is at say, 122 magery, that runs around 93ish or so, like I said.

It's true, I did misread what you said, however, that doesn't make what I said wrong, I said a good greater dragon will end up with skills between 70 and 90 (I'm slightly off on the higher end, that could as high as 94 for a dragon with perfect wrestling - which I don't believe I have ever seen, for the other skills they can be as high as 90.7). The truth is there are very few dragons with all their big four skills over 120 (I think maybe I've seen one or two), so what I said is generally going to be true, and you try pvp'ing with your combat skills even in the low 90's, and see how far you get...

It could still be close to GM on wrestling.

You claim to know so much, you should know there is a pretty big difference between 94 and gm when it comes to skills (and again that is for a dragon with perfect wrestling)

I disco pets all the time for training purposes. If I recall, the resist maxes are around 85/90/60/60/75, so if we knock 5 off of each for ****s and giggles, and disco it, we have somwhere around 52/57/27/27/42.

Again, that is for a perfect dragon, and falls in the range of what I said, in fact even lower, and again, I've never seen a dragon with perfect resists, not even an old school dragon...

Now honestly there, oh guru of pvp, how many dexxers attack with cold damage weaps? Poison isn't likely to kill them. Most come with a physical attack....I'll give you that some "might" use CW, but it's funny, that is a spell that most dexxers I see choose not to use or forget to use.

Any chiv dexxer with half a brain, attacking a greater dragon, will use consecrate weapon. You'd be stupid not to, whether it is discorded or not...

Bottom line, even with a dragon slayer, if Rev is vetting as he says, they aren't going to kill it in under 20 seconds.

*You're wrong, I stand by what I said, an advanced dexxer with a reptile or dragon slayer, could kill a good greater dragon, and possibly even a perfect one, in under 20 seconds. You can get far more than 10 hits in 20 seconds, and an advanced dexxer with a slayer won't miss a discorded greater dragon very often, and will be doing over 100 points of damage per hit (again, I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know it will be well over 100 points).

In fact, my parry fencer, with no chiv or bushido, with a reptile slayer, could probably kill a discorded greater dragon in under a minute.

* just to be clear, we are talking about greater dragons that have been tamed *

Answer me this bright one....if the gdrags aren't totally overpowered in PvP, WHY, WHY, WHY, did I see every PvP guild on three shards totally overwhelming their spawn spots the first month making sure they all got them? Why do I still see GOOD PvP gdrags sell for 15-20 mill gold, the highest price pet next a blaze cu. Yeah, they're not overpowered.

Funny you should say that. Right after greater dragons came out, I did see quite a few greater dragons in pvp on my shard, but you know what, that has died down completely. I now know of one tamer on my shard that regularly uses a greater dragon in pvp. She does quite well because she is backed by the largest pvp guild on the shard. Most other players that I see trying to use greater dragons die quickly, more than once, and give up and either come back on a different character, or don't come back at all...

Your statements simply don't match the reality of what I see. Maybe it is entirely different on other shards, but my guess is, the pvp'rs that do well with greater dragons, are doing well because they are backed by a large guild. I expect also that greater dragons are pretty effective in spawns, but again, they certainly aren't unbeatable, and back to the original point, if there is a bard discording your dragon, they lose a lot of their power, and the template becomes quite weak. Not to mention that a discorded pet is much easier to peace.

Aggressive bard actions, like discording, are just that, aggressive, and should be flagged as such.

This is coming from a tamer...

Pets have NO place AT ALL in PvP. Yes, that means that tamers are a PvM only template. Sorry, but having your pet discorded is just a work around to the insanity of being able to kill everyone with just a bola, a greater dragon, and the all kill command. Its lame, and it should be addressed.

Just because you play a tamer, doesn't mean you don't fall in the class of tamer haters when it comes to pvp, which you clearly do. Tamers with greater dragons in pvp one on one, can be beaten, and in fact are probably at a disadvantage, in fact one or two of your fellow tamer haters already posted as much in this very thread. If you don't know how to beat a tamer with a dragon, you need to take a close look at what those who can are doing, and try and figure it out, because it is more than possible, I know from experience. In fact, I rarely even use a greater dragon in pvp anymore, in part due to that very reason.

Pvp'ing with a tamer is as legit as pvp'ing with any other template, and the prejudice against them by the tamer haters, is just that, prejudice. It isn't based on statistics or facts, and it isn't based on any kind of logic. It is one of those mob mentality phenomena where the "mob" has decided it doesn't like something, and facts and logic aren't likely to change that.

I'll post what I have posted in other places. I sincerely hope that the devs, if they ever decide to tackle this issue, will collect solid statistics, and pay attention to what is actually happening, and not just listen to the complainers, regardless of which side they stand on the issue (I'm including myself in that equation). In fact, I would sincerely hope they would do that when addressing any "balance" issues in the game. I fear that in the past it has often been the side that has yelled the loudest, longest, and most consistently, that has eventually been listened to, and if that is all decisions and changes are based on, it is extremely bad for the game in general.

Having said that, I really don't think this incarnation of the dev team operates that way. I have a lot of respect for the current EA/Mythic dev team, and they seem to be doing a lot of things right. They are going out of their way to listen to their client community, but they also don't seem to be patsies that will simply act on the loudest and most consistent complaints. Here's hoping they continue to operate this way.

 

[Llewen]

Imagine if a blue necro could tag along behind a pet spamming Evil Omen on it constantly, without flagging. Or if a mage could spam an extra-powerful curse with no flag. It's as clear in those cases as it is in this one.

The difference being that discordance does zero damage. Yes it affects your pets, but it won't kill you or damage your pets in itself. It's the follow up attacks which kill your pets. The players who attack your pets would be appropriately flagged for you to attack them. bard has pets too, but for me, that would remove most if not all the fun of barding.

This is just an example of why I generally don't respond to Wenchy's posts. It's pretty hard to argue with someone who baldly states that 1 + 1 = 3.8, and seems to be convinced that it is true. Discordance does 0 damage, Evil Omen also does 0 damage. Yes it is true that a curse spell can knock off a few hit points, but even with that, the damage that a curse spell does to a character can in no way be compared to the devastating effect discord has on a pet's combat abilities, and survivability in general.

So take a count. Call a red friend. Both of those would work. If you think it's a bummer deal, consider how frustrating it is to be a red when a tamer jumps him from inside the guardzone. That's not fun either...

The point is I shouldn't have to take a count to defend myself. It doesn't matter what my reasons are for not wanting to take a count, I shouldn't have to take a count to defend myself from an attack, period, end of story. A red that is "jumped" from inside a guard zone can defend herself without getting guard whacked, or even taking a count, a tamer who's pet is discorded or peaced inside a guard zone simply can't defend herself, and if she is "attacked" outside the guard zone, she has to take a murder count to defend herself. This simply isn't right. She shouldn't have to "call a red friend" either to defend herself if she doesn't want to take a count, again period, end of story.

Again, you are saying 1 + 1 = 3.8. You seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that a red can defend herself from a tamer when she is attacked inside a guard zone, while tamer whose pet is "attacked" by a bard cannot. You seem to be intent on drawing a parallel there where there simply isn't one to be drawn. One is just and "fair", the other is not, again, period, end of story...

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

So you now don't support rev? (as he's the only one complaining for something to be changed)

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Again, you are saying 1 + 1 = 3.8. You seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that a red can defend herself from a tamer when she is attacked inside a guard zone, while tamer whose pet is "attacked" by a bard cannot. You seem to be intent on drawing a parallel there where there simply isn't one to be drawn. One is just and "fair", the other is not, again, period, end of story...

He said no such thing you loon.
He said discord does no damage, are you trying to say hes wrong? Your an idiot.

You don't HAVE to take a count or do anything else your pet is safely sat in the guard zone, if you chose to leave with it still discorded then thats your fault isn't it genius.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

The point is I shouldn't have to take a count to defend myself.

You don't.

 

[CKTC]

This is just an example of why I generally don't respond to Wenchy's posts. It's pretty hard to argue with someone who knows what their talking about.

Fixed that for ya lew

It isn't based on statistics or facts

Many people have spelt facts out to you in this thread and your response is "1 + 1 = 3.8" lol

 

[Llewen]

It isn't based on statistics or facts

Many people have spelt facts out to you in this thread and your response is "1 + 1 = 3.8" lol

Do you feel threatened by the devs basing their decisions on something concrete, as opposed to prejudice, hysteria, and outright lies?

 

[Orvago]

That is dual clienting by the definition normally accepted in the industry (playing two characters at once). They never once said that they were using illegal programs to run two clients on the same PC (which if its possible to do this legally in DAoC explain why its not possible to do it legally in UO).

To Legally play 2 different Ultima Online accounts on the Same Computer, you have to be using the normal operating system's way of handling 2 running programs without running any 3rd party programs to make it happen.

For Windows XP, to do this you need to have 2 Windows Users set up on the computer. Then "change how users log on and off" in the User settings in the Control Panel. Enable both using of the login screen and fast user switching. A reboot may be needed.

Then simply log into one Windows User account, press Windows Button+L to switch users quickly, log into the second Windows User account. Using Windows Button+L you can quickly switch between user accounts. Alternatively, there is a way to use 2 monitors on one pc to have each displaying the other Login Session. How to do this, I do not know.

Also, it may still be possible to run a session of the 2d Client and a session of the KR client on the same Windows Login account.

Using a crack, 3rd party software, or other non-Operating System means to play 2 clients at the same time is illegal to do in Ultima Online.

Logging into a single Ultima Online account more than once at a time is illegal no matter how it is done.

 

[Wenchkin]

This is just an example of why I generally don't respond to Wenchy's posts. It's pretty hard to argue with someone who baldly states that 1 + 1 = 3.8, and seems to be convinced that it is true.

Or maybe I just don't agree with you and your friends. I've asked you umpteen times to tell me how players should defend against you at Yew gate, yet you squirm away from the question repeatedly. Which leads me to another reason why you don't tend to reply to me - your arguments don't hold up to the counter arguments I've laid out. If they did, you'd shoot me down in flames, and deservedly so. But you don't. If anything I'm disappointed that you can be so determined to change bards but so reluctant to get into a nitty gritty discussion about it.

Discordance does 0 damage, Evil Omen also does 0 damage. Yes it is true that a curse spell can knock off a few hit points, but even with that, the damage that a curse spell does to a character can in no way be compared to the devastating effect discord has on a pet's combat abilities, and survivability in general.

Nope, I stated something which was accurate. Because while bards and tamer bards know the effects of discordance, some players don't. So before we get a heap of players on the same bandwagon, listening to exaggerated stories, I tidied that one up. Just as you'd correct a player who said a greater did 400 hps damage in one hit.

I've stated my opinion about the survivability of pets when disco'd. I've also stated that sometimes any character is going to fail, and that's ok. We shouldn't expect our tamers with pets to be stronger than other templates in PvP, because that breeds nothing but tamer hate. It makes the PvP field stupidly one-sided. Your requested change to bards would only lead to more tamer hate and more issues with tamer balance. If you can't see that, this argument is going nowhere.

I notice you're still avoiding the question I've posed at least 4 times now, asking how you or another tamer should be tackled around Yew gate if we aren't using a bard? Instead of branding others tamer haters because they don't agree with you, why not come up with something there? If you want to shoot my arguements down in a ball of fire, that's the way to do it. If you can't come up with something however, your requested change is just asking for more power to the Yew gate tamer. Which is just daft.

The point is I shouldn't have to take a count to defend myself.

Exactly why I also suggested calling a red. Personally I've done that a few times for my RP buildings when I couldn't take any more counts on my blues... I realise it isn't perfect, that red tamers have a much rougher time, but so do other templates. We all have to decide if we want to go red or not. Do you think you're playing the only template who gets annoyed by a blue? At Yew gate you see stacks of the gits, that's why I hate the place.

A red that is "jumped" from inside a guard zone can defend herself without getting guard whacked,

Sorry, but I saw a pretty sucky tamer take out 5+ reds solo and none came close to doing real damage to him. This was someone who when I flagged by attacking his mare, didn't have the noddle to attack me with his runey or spells. If you were easy to defend against, players wouldn't use bards. Why change characters unnecessarily?

Again, you are saying 1 + 1 = 3.8. You seem to be intent on ignoring the fact that a red can defend herself from a tamer when she is attacked inside a guard zone, while tamer whose pet is "attacked" by a bard cannot. You seem to be intent on drawing a parallel there where there simply isn't one to be drawn. One is just and "fair", the other is not, again, period, end of story...

You simply call disco attacking when I wouldn't. Quit with the crazy maths already, it's called a difference of opinion. I class an attack as something which takes a few HPS from me or my pets, not something which simply pulls them down a peg. Your talking about defending yourself, against an attack which in itself does zero HPS worth of damage. You need protection against the subsequent attacks, sure, but not the disco.

Wenchy