OSI/EAM There is no longer a Need to Kill Tamers (Players) when your client crash's

[EnigmaMaitreya]

The parts of this discussion from elsewhere. There may be strange references that I have left out due to people trying to trash the thread, meaning they had nothing useful to say.

Also I do not see a Tamer forum so I am using this forum and this of course applies to all class's not just tamers.

With any kind of luck there wont be any of the .... well connected attack dogs come barking here but I tend to doubt it as they are just hard core griefers

Anyone that chooses to make the thread about me feel free, you can clearly buy a Thread lock but I wont bother with you

No matter how it may seem, I mean no disrespect here. All you will see is frustration at something totally idiotic (my opinion).

I do not own YOUR client nor can I be responsible for its stability. THAT IS YOUR DOMAIN.

The BEEF:

A Tamer and his Pet are engaging a Mob. The Tamer is Veting the Pet.

YOUR client crash's. The pet either becomes virtually (it is really still there) invisible to the MoB and the tamer is the ONLY target the mob can see OR the pet is Virtually sent to the Stables BUT NOT REALLY although it is NOT present.

The TAMER is not in control of diddly squat at this time because YOUR client crashed.. So the Tamer DIES.

IF the pet is still present than apparently the MOB can see the PET AFTER the Tamer is dead. In this case IF the mob vs pet is really depending on the Tamer veting then the Pet WILL BE DEAD by the time the Tamer can reload the client, get rez'd and to the pet.

IF the pet is NOT present (as in the stables) the Tamer CAN NOT summon anything (in the case of a 5 slot pet such as a greater dragon) even though when the tamer goes to a stable the pet is really in the stable.

SOLUTION: Get the client stable

SOLUTION: Don't do this Link Dead thing HALF A.... well DO IT RIGHT. If your going to do a Link Dead procedure, then set BOTH the tamer and the pet invulnerable OR send BOTH to a safe place.

Yeah I get that in the BAD OLD days people would disconnect their modem to avoid dieing, but with cable/dsl I doubt there are that many modem people out there. Of that group I doubt that many would use that exploit.

I have to say I agree that when you crash, and your pet insta logs, it is extraordinarily annoying, because you will come back in saying ooOOooOOOo.

However, I still like that when my power goes out, I don't lose my bonded pet over the next few hours. You can't have insta log, people would do it too often to avoid death. So, I don't really see a good solution, just dealing with the one we have.

And, to the people who say crashes don't happen often. I have to say, try opening a corpse, drag an item, and run. It crashes me at least 50% of the time.

This goes back to the original UO. Originally when you went LD you were made character non-gratis, a non thing or in more simple terms, invulnerable to attack. Then for PvP reasons that was changed to pretty much what is there now. It was exclusively for PvP.

I accept your belief that there are a number of people that would cheat death by exploiting the situation.

It is not my belief.

I am in no position to argue my belief as to the number is right or wrong. I am how ever in a position to argue the case that to mandate the Tamer be killed is no longer relevant and should be changed.

The case is such, if a person is actually going to use said exploit, that person probably wont be in UO long anyway as they are playing a game that doesn't conform to their expectations. In short, I will cheat my way to what ever my goal is. Them playing their play style will have little to no effect on me and I predict it would have no effect on others.

For the legitimate player then the penalty for something happening that was beyond their control is removed. This will by anyones definition that experiences this, agree, it would be a reduction in the frustration and perceived flaws in UO.

Let us also not forget the issue of the Pet.

In the case it isn't stabled for some reason and its ability to survive is based on veting or healing, then that pet has a probability of being a ghost as well as the tamer.

In the case of it being stabled AND still being held as active in your pet control count that can have a consequence as well. Such as the Greater Dragon that is really in the stable but is held active on your control count and you can NOT summon an Ethereal mount to improve your chances of getting to your corpse.

I agree that the dying while crashing is annoying, but its not that bad. I crash die on my tamer all the time, but it ever annoys me enough to bother posting about it.

Just be glad your pet disappears and bonds. Back in the day, pets never bonded AND didn't disappear if I remember correctly, so if you were fighting something potentially deadly to the pet, well... you could lose the pet forever.

There are ways to circumvent coding problems and design flaws. No matter how I try to bring myself to look at it they are one way or another exploiting the designers intentions.

Rather that try to go around them, I bring this to their attention and say it is time to rethink this antiquated (my opinion) perception of how to deal with people.

Yes in the old days you would lose your pet. BUT you also did not need to sink 100's of hours into being able to be able to tame a pet and then several hundred more hours training the pet.

Such that in my opinion, Bonding simply made the changes to taming more tolerable as no one would spend the time sink to be a tamer if the pet died when the Client Crash'd

And yes I would get very upset at losing one of my more favored pets in the Bad Old Days, but hey crud happens and you deal with and move on. This is not the same thing.

There is both a coding issue and a design issue that is impacting far more (my speculation) people than it is protecting.

It is not clear to me that we, the paying customers, should simply accept that code issues (The Stabled Pet still counting on your Control Count) should be accepted as Ok. It is a bug, this bug causes problems, I may be the only one in UO that feels that bugs should be resolved by the owners of the game and not continually circumvented by the players.

Here is a solution... team work and ventrillo.

You lose connection... ask for a Invis. and relog.

Of course, that would end soloying hunting in UO.

IF a router internal to the OSI data center were to go down for a Shard, this does NOT take the shard down, it may not take all people down, but if you and your .... buddy were coming in through that internal router then you and your buddy are going to be Ghost Runners.

The issue is in one case the Code does NOT implement the design. It should be fixed to actually implement the design. I feel very comfortable in stating that the design never intended for the Stabled pet to be BOTH stabled AND being counted on your Control Slots.

As for the Solution, they can simply put it back to the way UO was when it came out of the Egg (Beta) meaning you were removed from the game and could not be attacked. Of course you could be when you come back in but that is the risk one takes.

The issue is in one case the Code does NOT implement the design. It should be fixed to actually implement the design. I feel very comfortable in stating that the design never intended for the Stabled pet to be BOTH stabled AND being counted on your Control Slots.

I think this was an intentional change ... but I haven't looked it up yet. Back in the day if this happened your pet walked off or went POOF! If it walked off you could sometimes find it, alot of times not.

When I get home i'll try to find publish notes to support this.


1) I belive it's an intentional way of reclaiming your pet without having to walk all over creation to find it (you just go to the stable and reclaim)
- a change intended to satisy those who don't want to lose pets in a legitimate crash/outage.


2) It keeps the pet in your control so that you have the potential to lose it if you don't log back in soon.
- an anti-griefing mechanism.


3) You also keep control so that griefers can't OVERFILL their stable with slots that are over the intended maximums.
- also an anti-griefing mechanism.

Personally, I think this is a really good alternative to losing your pets and an equitable system put in place by the devs.

# Addressed an issue with followers being lost at logout.

* When a player logs out, followers (pets, hired NPCs) will be auto-stabled, returning to the player upon login.
* Pets that do not automatically return to the player can be claimed at the stable master.
Yes this would be the design. The coding does NOT implement this OR the design is incomplete.

When a follower is stabled, then the Control Count, my opinion, should NOT reflect the follower being in your control. Unless the follower is actually with you.

I do not contest the ... good intentions, I contest the coding does not conform to the design and the disconnect does cause a reduced play of the game.

In terms of the pet being placed in the stable, fine BUT the tamer / controller should NOT be left vulnerable due to circumstances beyond their control. This choice on OSI's part was 100% a PKing (aka PvP) issue and has always caused the NON PvP population segment of UO grief and misery. The accumulated miser over the years has far out weighed (my belief and I can not substantiate it with real, factual numbers) any grief its absence may have caused any PK'r at losing its victim by exploiting the situation. It isn't as though this could not still be done when one is engaged in PvP.

I have no clue what you guys are talking about. You don't have to go to the stables to get your pet back.

You crash. Pet goes into invis mode but still counts as being there. Monster pwns you. nom nom nom...

You log back in. Your pet is gone, and you're now in the 70's day time show Days of Our OoooooOOOOooo episode #30000000x10^44.

Now you do two things.
A. You log as a ghost, and then log back in and POOF! your pet is there.

OR

B. You get a res. You log out and then you log back in and ... POOF your pet is there. You don't have to go to the stables to get your pet...

Also, Eff is correct, that coding was put in so that your pet wouldn't wonder off when you lost connection. People were losing pets and not able to find them again which took a GM I believe to get them because you couldn't release them or anything.

So... no clue what is going on. Its annoying that you get killed while link dead for whatever reason, but its really not that bad. I mean, you can assume that people wouldn't abuse the invuln, but I believe it was originally changed because people were abusing it.

I know I would start hunting in Fel and when ever pvpers came by I'd jus alt-f4. I'm being honest, as I think a lot of other people would be too.

I think a fix would be nice if cashing cleared your hate list and put you under an effect similar to embracing honor. This would prevent monsters from killing you, but leave you as fair game for players.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

I disagree. It should be left alone they have it easy enough as it is.

 

[Crysta]

So basically, you're angry because they put in something unnecessary that almost all of the tamers begged for for years and the devs wisely ignored until recently? But not BECAUSE it was unwise, but because the thing we don't really need doesn't work specifically to your liking?

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

So basically, you're angry because they put in something unnecessary that almost all of the tamers begged for for years and the devs wisely ignored until recently? But not BECAUSE it was unwise, but because the thing we don't really need doesn't work specifically to your liking?

Not quite sure I understand your complaint with me.

I am not clear were I advocate they change the pet stabling concept or construct.

I advocate they simply place people that go LD in a state they can not be attacked, in the case of a tamer that can (DOES NOT MEAN THEY NEED TO, it means it is an option) also include the pet(s)/Follower(s) and then place them in the stable once the log off happens?

I advocate they correct the coding issue where, for example, if I go LD with my Greater Dragon, the GD is gone and I have NO contgyrol slots left open. I can NOT mount an Ethereal Mount I can not temporarily tame anything to assist in retrieving my corpse. You can not seriously believe that the intent of the desing and code was to consume the control slots with a stabled follower can you? If so then Ok I get your position and lets just move on as we wont agree.

I am curious what in my position is it that you see were I advocate causing any problem for tamers or people that go LD?

Are you seriously advocating that Tamers and others should be auto killed because any one of a hundred ways, they can be disconnected from their character? I do not think you are but your insistence in portraying that I werll want something that I cant quite figure out what your accusing me of wanting that is harmfull to tamers and others that are disconnected from their character.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I disagree. It should be left alone they have it easy enough as it is.

He he Ok, I get the Tamer reference BUT you do realize this applies to all class's as in if a Router intgernal to the EAM data center goes down N number of all class's will be disconnected from the shard and those that are engaged or were their items can not keep them alive will be dead?

 

[Crysta]

Are you seriously advocating that Tamers and others should be auto killed because any one of a hundred ways, they can be disconnected from their character? I do not think you are but your insistence in portraying that I werll want something that I cant quite figure out what your accusing me of wanting that is harmfull to tamers and others that are disconnected from their character.

No, but I also don't think they should be treated specially and protected in ways other players aren't (warriors don't get saved like that if a shard crashes, why should pets?), and the fact that they did it is open to so many issues anyway. My problem isn't really with your suggestion.. more it's with the whole mechanic in the first place, and that you're complaining about something everybody asked for just because something about it isn't right to you. While I can see your frustration, it's what the majority begged for and I doubt anything else will be done about it.. the devs probably did things to the best of their abilities considering the generally constrictive nature of this game's programming.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

No, but I also don't think they should be treated specially and protected in ways other players aren't (warriors don't get saved like that if a shard crashes, why should pets?), and the fact that they did it is open to so many issues anyway. My problem isn't really with your suggestion.. more it's with the whole mechanic in the first place, and that you're complaining about something everybody asked for just because something about it isn't right to you. While I can see your frustration, it's what the majority begged for and I doubt anything else will be done about it.. the devs probably did things to the best of their abilities considering the generally constrictive nature of this game's programming.

Crysta, let us break things out here.

I was not here for the original advocacy of the Pet Stabling so they didnt wonder off and get lost. I can not sppeak to what they would or would not have wanted on that subject. I limit myself to the fact that when the GD is stabled it is still consuming the control slots and I can do nothing. A rather dumb example would be if a Warrior did not insure their weapon and it was on their corpse and they tried to pick a weapon up and wield it they were being told they could not do so because they already had a weapon wilded but obviously do not and do not fight as if they did.

My other point is the entire construct of be left vulnerable when you are disconnected (and this goes to all class's) was not the way UO was originally. It was changed because PKr's were complaining that people were cheating death by disconnecting the modem or forcing the client to crash. This obviously cause grief and frustration for everyone being ... (my words) punished for this choice when they did nothing wrong and were not exploiting anything. I am simply advocating that choice needs to be removed as it is no longer applicable. I use the tamer because it is the most obvious, but I genuinely include every one.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

He he Ok, I get the Tamer reference BUT you do realize this applies to all class's as in if a Router intgernal to the EAM data center goes down N number of all class's will be disconnected from the shard and those that are engaged or were their items can not keep them alive will be dead?

Yes, the reason for the Tamer reference is because you mentioned Tamers. It may apply to anyone who is disconnected and regardless of that not always being your fault doesn't make it anymore theirs (EA/Mythic or whoever runs this shin dig these days). You talk about them being stuck with five follower slots and no pet and that they can't tame anything else or summon an ethy (if with a greater dragon) but the time it takes to do those things isn't greatly under the time it takes to re-log and bring your pet right back to where you are anyway.

The auto stable feature is constantly abused as it is.
What your advocating is in essence auto stable for players which regardless of intentions would be heavily abused.

You said (in your reply to the other person) that it is no longer aplicable, but how is it not? I could quite easily unplug my modem on the middle of a fight if I was about to lose. (Not that I would neccessarily bother but theres plenty who would)

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

....
The auto stable feature is constantly abused as it is.
What your advocating is in essence auto stable for players which regardless of intentions would be heavily abused.

You said (in your reply to the other person) that it is no longer aplicable, but how is it not? I could quite easily unplug my modem on the middle of a fight if I was about to lose. (Not that I would neccessarily bother but theres plenty who would)

I am not able to discuss your position on the auto stable as I don't see (as in I am clueless) the exploit there unless of course your referring to PvP. If that is the case then as far as I am concerned it is part and parcel to the 2nd part of your reply (well 3rd as I removed the first part)

We can have a peeing amtch here, I can as easily claim the reason PvP people want to keep this the way it is, is so they have a Risk Free Kill and griefing of a PvP tamer or any unlucky NoN PvPr that got caught in Fel and was disconnected by something other than their own fault.

I would prefer to not go down either path as I do not believe either path reflects the majority of players.

I do concede that some PvP will would use this proposal to escape death. BUT on the other hand for PvM I am not advicating relocating them or their pet. I am advocating they get left right were they are when they log back in.


The basis for the request is that my belief is in the Player Base of UO, that majoritivly that base has grown up and away from that kind of thinking.

At any rate I do concede your points but I do not perceive them as compelling, for the reasons I have stated. I may be wrong about the UO player base, but my experience over the last 4 months is that I am not wrong.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

I am not refering to PvP, in regards to auto stable, a player is fighting something with their pet (a vanguard for example) it spawns a load of stuff and the pet is overwhealmed and begins to die. The tamer only has to move half a screen away and log out to save their pet and bring it out of the fight where they can then heal it back up and return to the fight. That is commonly used, pets hardly ever die because of it. It is so effective that people with unbonded pets can still use them with no fear of losing them.

Again (not sure why you've turned this in to PvP/PvM issue) it is equally applicable both sides of the moongate. Die and lose your stuff/insurance or become invincible until your able to log back in, what do you think players are going to choose?

I know your not advocating relocating them and never said you were. It has always been the case at least in the 8 or so years I've played that unless you log at an inn or house your friended to unless flagged your character will stay there for five minutes (not sure if it changed to two?). The reason for this has come up many times and they have commented many times that they couldn't change it anyway regardless of any misuse issues. (I don't have a link to where they said this)

I think your belief is somewhat misguided as in my experience the player base has gotten younger and more inclinded to use questionable tactics.

 

[Googly]

If your client crashes a lot, you have a PC issue that needs to be solved. Try turning off the music, for one. This seems to get rid of 90% of crashing issues. Otherwise, get yourself a nice battery backup system and a better modem. Router giving you trouble? Get a long Ethernet wire and direct connect.

Whats the penalty for dieing? The time it takes to get rezzed?

They took out tram looting rights. Go back to your corpse and get your stuff back.

Insure the stuff. If its highly valuable and can't be insured, send it via your bag of sending (and don't give me that "its nerfed" crap. It still works. If you cant afford the extra powder, go make your own.).

Too much mob around your corpse to get back to it? Go train honor. Even tamers can. I'm almost a Knight of Honor on my tamer.

Fact is, dieing happens. But, in the trammel rule set facets, you don't lose a dang thing but a few thousand gold in insurance, and maybe a few measly gold piles and other items if you, for some odd reason, cant get back to your body.

Allowing what you're saying simply opens up room for abuse. Where-as not having it means people have to take the few minutes out of their busy hunting schedule to go get rezzed.

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

I am not refering to PvP, in regards to auto stable, a player is fighting something with their pet (a vanguard for example) it spawns a load of stuff and the pet is overwhealmed and begins to die. The tamer only has to move half a screen away and log out to save their pet and bring it out of the fight where they can then heal it back up and return to the fight. That is commonly used, pets hardly ever die because of it. It is so effective that people with unbonded pets can still use them with no fear of losing them....

Ah well now I kniow why my pet is dieing all the time but then again I could not bring myself to perform that tactic as in the end all I do is cheat myself of the entertainment value of the game.

Thanks for the heads up on what is being done, it really never occurred to me to do that.

The rest we appear to simply disagree on and hopefully we understand each others position. Disagree on as in NOT saying one side is right and one side is wrong, rather neither is compelled to believe the other side is the best solution.

BUT in my opinion, bring all the perspectives out and have them be adequatly advocated is what is best for UO, even if it results in the status quoe.

 

[Wenchkin]

Tamers shouldn't be protected in a way that other classes aren't. If we drop con, we already have the advantage of pets being autostabled, which is more than enough IMHO.

In the old system if your PC died while your tamer was out, any non mounts were left where you stood. I've lost several pets irretrievably before the arrival of autostabling, and luckily a friend has saved my pets for me on other occasions when he found my pets wild at my home. I'm very glad to have autostable, even if I have the odd death when my pets vanish. To me, a well trained pet is more important than any insurance gold and a few reagents.

I usually just get a res, invis, then relog to bring my pets back.

Wenchy

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

The rest we appear to simply disagree on and hopefully we understand each others position. Disagree on as in NOT saying one side is right and one side is wrong, rather neither is compelled to believe the other side is the best solution.

We do.

(On a side note it's refreshing to have a civilized discussion - to me, the usual lack of that happening also attests to the player bases age and mentality)

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

Tamers shouldn't be protected in a way that other classes aren't. If we drop con, we already have the advantage of pets being autostabled, which is more than enough IMHO.
....

Wenchy, if you dont minde, I would like to make sure I understand your assertion that Tamers are protected.

I am assuming your referring to the Auto Stable and not some thing else that yet again I am clueless about (as Lord God pointed out).

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

We do.

(On a side note it's refreshing to have a civilized discussion - to me, the usual lack of that happening also attests to the player bases age and mentality)

He thanks for the Heads up and if I see some one doing that exploit, I will leave them high and dry. I do not take well to that game play and honestly I feel very uncomfortable with some of the changes that were considered exploits when I was playing UO. I get it that it has become expected, I do not agree it should have ever gotten that to that stage.

As an addendum, it has been my experience in EQ and previously in UO that the powers that be, prefer to read/observe an exchange of positions and stay out of it. The goal being they can see the thinking of the Player Base, Lead by the Player base and not being lead by players thinking the powere are saying this or that.

So I totally agree the ability to present the varying view points/positions and have them adequately advocated is a wonderous thing indeed and as far as I am concerned has done more to influence the direction of UO and EQ than any other Powers that be - Player interaction.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

It's not particularly an exploit as such. Just another case of poor design. It's always been the case in my opinion that they put things in the game then ask what harm does it do rather than ask the only two questions design should follow before implementing it. (Is it needed at all & does it do what it's supposed to be doing and nothing more)

Thats not to say they can't put in things that are just for the fun of it there used to be things like that, but UO is (and has been for a long time) in the all or nothing stage. Something is usually either over powered or useless. (not always over powered in itself but in what it can allow to be done)

Though all of thats just my opinion, I'm not a developer or designer have no training in such areas and am generally happy to leave it up to them. That doesn't mean though that I can't spot the inherant flaws in pretty much everything added to the game (other than house customising) just that I try not to make threads about every little thing. If I did I would be on here all day. House customising is I still believe the only thing they've ever done to this game excluding one or two unforseen bugs involving duping and security that occured later, that was designed fairly well from the offset. (Most of the bugs with it were the result of other items rather than the house design system itself)

 

[Dexdash]

OSI/EAM There is no longer a Need to Kill Tamers (Players) when your client crash


i love how this title sounds like the devs are personaly out to get tamers.

Dude when your computer crashes sometimes you die. I you dont like it hunt with a friend that cand invis you. nothing needs to change.

I was in a faction fight the other night and a budy of mine crashed in the middle of 10 opposing pvpers. invis off and he lived tada!

 

[EnigmaMaitreya]

It's not particularly an exploit as such. Just another case of poor design. It's always been the case in my opinion that they put things in the game then ask what harm does it do rather than ask the only two questions design should follow before implementing it. (Is it needed at all & does it do what it's supposed to be doing and nothing more)

Thats not to say they can't put in things that are just for the fun of it there used to be things like that, but UO is (and has been for a long time) in the all or nothing stage. Something is usually either over powered or useless. (not always over powered in itself but in what it can allow to be done)

Though all of thats just my opinion, I'm not a developer or designer have no training in such areas and am generally happy to leave it up to them. That doesn't mean though that I can't spot the inherant flaws in pretty much everything added to the game (other than house customising) just that I try not to make threads about every little thing. If I did I would be on here all day. House customising is I still believe the only thing they've ever done to this game excluding one or two unforseen bugs involving duping and security that occured later, that was designed fairly well from the offset. (Most of the bugs with it were the result of other items rather than the house design system itself)

Here we are in agreement, these are design/coding flaws. *Shrug* I consider anything the player does to circumvent a game device is an exploit, I wouldn't get hung up here as the difference in meaning is trivial to non existent and mostly would be consistent we people play styles. I am not closed minded and think O Johnny is doing that so Johnny is bad. I wouldn't even think of coming from that place. I want the best possible entertainment from anything I am doing. Risking and dieing is a part of that. Learning to avoid the mistake is the meat behind No Pain No Gain.

In that vein, I am not opposed to dieing and my pet dies as well, as long as I the player had the fate of our virtual lives in my hand and not mandated to me by a decision.

I fully get Wenchy's place of preserving the well trained pet. I really do. I really hate it when my pet dies due to my own misjudgments, I pee and moan and kick the Virtual Ground, but it was my bad, my mistake and I can learn from it to be a better UO Tamer and I will grudgingly pay the price of retraining the pet.

 

[Wenchkin]

Wenchy, if you dont minde, I would like to make sure I understand your assertion that Tamers are protected.

I am assuming your referring to the Auto Stable and not some thing else that yet again I am clueless about (as Lord God pointed out).

Aye, I don't want tamers themselves protected while our pets are safe with auto stabling. Just doesn't feel fair on other characters when they are fully exposed to the same risks.

If we then said "ok, let's immediately remove all players from game if they drop con" that would probably bring a new form of abuse, not to mention lurers who claim to have dropped con when they actually logged out to cause the monsters to target you instead. I think it's a can of worms we shouldn't open

Wenchy

 

[Nystul]

They should remove it from the game completely.

Too many players abuse it to get thier pets to places, when they should not be able to without sumomn balls.

Also too many players abuse it for other things...