"Glorious" and other useless titles.
Coolair3
Illustrious fame-mongers. I noto-pk many of you on a nightly basis. I see
"Glorious Lord" and I see a character who cannot PVP worth a lick. If you PVP
at all you will die enough times that there is no chance of having fame that
high. So to all you Glorious Lords and Ladies... keep dropping those blade
spirits, I love the loot.
<Name withheld by request... I get flamed enough already>
Quentin
your Glorious or Illustrios title. That does not mean that that person can't
PvP. I happen to know 2 people one is a Glorious Lord the other a Glorious
Lady. Both are very good PvP char. They choose not to use those char.for PvP
for the most part but if attacked they do kick some ass with them. They both
have maintained their titles for the past 6 or more months. Even with PvP
battles so don't assum that just because some one has a title that they are
an easy prey.
Quentin of Atlantic.
Coolair3 <cool...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000124185612...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Eric A. Hall
> >What is all this talk about fame? I for one love all you Glorious and
> >Illustrious fame-mongers. I noto-pk many of you on a nightly basis.
>
> I must have misunderstood the meaning of "noto-PK"--I've been taking
> it to mean killing people because they are grey or red and can be
> safely PK'd without giving a murder count.
He also said "keep dropping those blade spirits, I love the loot." He's
a noto-killer in that he's charging blades to gray-flag the caster.
He basically admits that he's a welfare gimp, too lazy to earn gold
through in-game channels and too weak to go red.
Eric A. Hall
> On the other hand, I don't know a single "Lord" character who isn't a
> complete jerkoff.
I do, but I can't say the same about noto killers.
Eric A. Hall
> Then again, he's preying on people who are getting a free ride
> from a spell that takes unfair advantage of bad AI.
Yes BS and EV are overpowered. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Noto-killing is living _entirely_ outside the game.
ML
> What is all this talk about fame? I for one love all you Glorious and
> "Glorious Lord" and I see a character who cannot PVP worth a lick. If you
PVP
> at all you will die enough times that there is no chance of having fame
that
> spirits, I love the loot.
As a regular player on both Pac (role-playing) and Napa (pvp), I've seen
that there are two ways to play the game. One is of the monster hunter,
where you can't help to get fame (this is not fame-mongering), and the other
is of people hunter, in which case you are going to die, so having fame is
pretty useless. Having a Glorious Lord chr on Pac, I have noticed that I get
more respect due to my title, which is pretty cool. As a pvper on Napa with
no fame whatsoever, but as a veteran gm chr, it's cool to bash people whom
can't be sure of my prowess until it's too late, and hopefully I win; fame
loss if I die, no big deal. Both ways are challenging and have their
benefits. Don't ridicule one just because it isn't how you play.
ML
Katherine
>What is all this talk about fame? I for one love all you Glorious and
>Illustrious fame-mongers. I noto-pk many of you on a nightly basis.
[snip]
I must have misunderstood the meaning of "noto-PK"--I've been taking
it to mean killing people because they are grey or red and can be
safely PK'd without giving a murder count.
Katherine, Master Healer
Ciaran, Lia Fail Empire (Atlantic)
Jeff Gentry
: Illustrious fame-mongers. I noto-pk many of you on a nightly basis. I see
: "Glorious Lord" and I see a character who cannot PVP worth a lick. If you PVP
: at all you will die enough times that there is no chance of having fame that
: high. So to all you Glorious Lords and Ladies... keep dropping those blade
: spirits, I love the loot.
Hahaha. You rock. And i'm not being sarcastic hehe
--
Jeff Gentry jes...@rpi.edu gen...@rpi.edu
"You're one of those condescending UNIX users! ...."
"Here's a nickel kid ... get yourself a real computer."
Damocles
>
>He also said "keep dropping those blade spirits, I love the loot." He's
>a noto-killer in that he's charging blades to gray-flag the caster.
>
>He basically admits that he's a welfare gimp, too lazy to earn gold
>through in-game channels and too weak to go red.
On the other hand, I don't know a single "Lord" character who isn't a
complete jerkoff.
Jeff Gentry
: He also said "keep dropping those blade spirits, I love the loot." He's
: a noto-killer in that he's charging blades to gray-flag the caster.
Then again, he's preying on people who are getting a free ride
from a spell that takes unfair advantage of bad AI.
I see nothing wrong w/ that.
Jeff Gentry
: I must have misunderstood the meaning of "noto-PK"--I've been taking
: it to mean killing people because they are grey or red and can be
: safely PK'd without giving a murder count.
Yeap.
But then people realized that it was a bad thing to be called a NPK
and it became applied to all *kinds* of things. These days, the unwashed
masses use it to describe people who can kill but stay blue.
So thus, it is entirely possible to have a fight where one person
is a NPK in the classical sense, but another in the nouveau sense.
Otara
>Then again, he's preying on people who are getting a free ride
>from a spell that takes unfair advantage of bad AI.
>
>I see nothing wrong w/ that.
I think its rather hypocritical. If he wants to PK people for doing
things he doesnt like, he could at least take the consequences that go
with it.
Otara
Jeff Gentry
How is that "noto-killing"? The person is a criminal because their
spell commited a criminal act.
Being a NPK only applies when you attack a red/grey without knowing
that they have actually done wrong.
I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
Otara
>Eric A. Hall (eh...@ehsco.com) wrote:
>: Noto-killing is living _entirely_ outside the game.
>
>How is that "noto-killing"? The person is a criminal because their
>spell commited a criminal act.
Ah cmon - if I threw myself under a lawnmower, would that make the
person using it a criminal?
>Being a NPK only applies when you attack a red/grey without knowing
>that they have actually done wrong.
As opposed to attacking someone simply for using a blade spell. Seems
a bit like attacking someone for being grey without doing 'wrong' to
me.
>I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
>be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
Hmm. Bit of a sledgehammer IMO - too many pissed off players for too
little gain. As happens with most attempts to use PK's in order to
balance game deficiencies.
Ah well, PvP- will kill that little trick off.
Otara
Mat
news:86j8pa$mng$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
> How is that "noto-killing"? The person is a criminal because their
> spell commited a criminal act.
Umm, like this:
1. Wannabe NPK sees adventurer A drop a blade spirit on some monster
2. Wannabe runs like hell into the bladespirit to make the caster grey
3. Wannabe then proceeds to wimpily having fooled the notoriety system to PK
the caster without reason.
> Being a NPK only applies when you attack a red/grey without knowing
> that they have actually done wrong.
Nah, that's just as much NPK'ing as the aforementioned.
> I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
> be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
Urm, I think it should be considered cowardice.
--
Mat
Eric A. Hall
> How is that "noto-killing"? The person is a criminal because their
> spell commited a criminal act.
>
> that they have actually done wrong.
IIn this case the attacker knows that the victim did NOT do anything
wrong. So he's a blue PK instead...? That's still being a welfare gimp.
> I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
> be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
I've always held the view that [N/B]PKs needed lame excuses to justify
why they can't live red.
The Weeble King
also have the Magery and SHOULD have the cautious common sense to Dispel it
when Johnie-come-Jack-off gets too close..
Months ago, while out guild hunting the Ophids near the Terrathan keep, some
Chaos guilder/Noto-Jerk ran up to one of our guild master's EVs, then rushed
him..problem is, guildmaster had the sense to fizz the EV away before dumb-ass
attacks. Dumb-ass goes grey, then expects full on whomping from our 7 hunters.
We just "discouraged" him from continuing his attack, and warned him that next
time, he'd go down.
10 minutes later, he decided to call our bluff..we left him a rotting corpse.
*shrugs*
One jerk-off doesn't have to ruin the game, but they sure try hard enough..
Cyrus of Delucia,
Atlantic.
*Bring on the pain....*
Jeff Gentry
: 1. Wannabe NPK sees adventurer A drop a blade spirit on some monster
: 2. Wannabe runs like hell into the bladespirit to make the caster grey
: 3. Wannabe then proceeds to wimpily having fooled the notoriety system to PK
: the caster without reason.
He's not a NPK. You're using the newer, yet incorrect definition of NPK.
If that person didn't want to get attacked, he shouldn't use those spells.
People on this NG are always talking about how it is okay to attack a
grey or red on sight because the system says they can - well, if someone
walks into someone else's blade that should be fine - the system says they can.
: > Being a NPK only applies when you attack a red/grey without knowing
: > that they have actually done wrong.
: Nah, that's just as much NPK'ing as the aforementioned.
No, it is the only true definition of NPK.
: > I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
: > be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
: Urm, I think it should be considered cowardice.
The coward is the original caster.
Jeff Gentry
: > that they have actually done wrong.
: wrong. So he's a blue PK instead...? That's still being a welfare gimp.
But the 'victim' did do something wrong. His spell attacked someone.
That's the problem with those spells. I've always viewed them as
"dangerous magic". They're overpowered for their circle (compared
to direct damage), but their downside is that they tend to go
awry. Kinda like mind blast (back when it worked) ... yeah it did
good damage, but it could sting you too.
: > I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
: > be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
: I've always held the view that [N/B]PKs needed lame excuses to justify
: why they can't live red.
*shrugs* I don't do it, I just see no problem with it. It helps
keep those bladers/EVers in check a bit. Even with the thread of
blade jumpers they still do it all day long, and then ask OSI to nerf
the blade jumpers. Bunch of losers (the bladers/EVers)
Jeff Gentry
: Ah cmon - if I threw myself under a lawnmower, would that make the
: person using it a criminal?
In the US, I bet you could have a decent chance of getting in trouble.
: >Being a NPK only applies when you attack a red/grey without knowing
: >that they have actually done wrong.
: As opposed to attacking someone simply for using a blade spell. Seems
: a bit like attacking someone for being grey without doing 'wrong' to
: me.
If the spell attacks soemone else *shrugs*. I personally don't do it
(well, unless the guy is on my 'to kill' list anyhow) because I
don't view it as an attackable offense - but people who believe that
all greys/reds should be attacked shouldn't have any problem with
attacking bladers/EVers. oddly enough though - usually bladers/EVers
think that all greys and reds should be attacked.
: >I have always held the view that people jumping blads & EVs should
: >be considered an acceptable "power check" on teh spells.
: Hmm. Bit of a sledgehammer IMO - too many pissed off players for too
: little gain. As happens with most attempts to use PK's in order to
: balance game deficiencies.
I dunno. There are still a billion, zillion people blading/EVing.
Must be worth what "sledgehammer" is there.
: Ah well, PvP- will kill that little trick off.
Yeah, hopefully they learn their lesson and take out risk-free
monster harvesting.
Jeff Gentry
: I think its rather hypocritical. If he wants to PK people for doing
: things he doesnt like, he could at least take the consequences that go
: with it.
If the monster hunter wants to kill monsters, he should at least take
the consequences that go with it.
--
Eric A. Hall
> But the 'victim' did do something wrong. His spell attacked someone.
No it didn't. The [N/B]PK charged for the sole purpose of getting
attacked, which is a totally different thing.
You can try to weasel the words all you want, but it's not flying yet.
> Bunch of losers (the bladers/EVers)
Possibly, but that doesn't excuse the behavior.
Eric A. Hall
> If the monster hunter wants to kill monsters, he should at least take
> the consequences that go with it.
They should just stay in town, right?
Jeff Gentry
: > the consequences that go with it.
: They should just stay in town, right?
No, but he should actually have to *face* the monster, instead of killing
it without risk.
People poke at PKs left and right for cheap shotting other players. For
attacking characters who have no prayer of fighting back. And then
they drop an EV on a liche lord in such a way that said monster can never
begin to fight back.
Jeff Gentry
: attacked, which is a totally different thing.
*shrugs* I never said it was something a "nice guy" did. But I disagree
with it being a "bad thing" to do. It *definately* isn't NPKing. And
I really have no problem with it. Basically, people who found a way
to get easy money are complaining because another group of players
found a way to get easy money (by attacking the original group).
: > Bunch of losers (the bladers/EVers)
: Possibly, but that doesn't excuse the behavior.
It doesn't need to be "excused". UO has unrestricted PvP combat, with
a set of guidelines and rules. The rules state that blades and EVs
are dangerous magics and can bring harm on the caster in the form of
angry player characters.
Just like so many othersi n this NG state that if you're red/grey you
should accept being attacked, so should the casters of those spells.
Jeff Gentry
: They're not designed to be the consequences that go with it. Its
Sure there are. Like "danger", "monster having the ability to fight
back", etc. Bladers and the like are circumventing those.
: taking advantage of a game feature designed to make PKing with those
: spells dangerous.
I'd personally just rather see them take those spells out of the game.
That'd solve both problems with one toss of a stone. But then you'd
see whining louder than Q can muster for the escorting thing.
Jeff Gentry
: Well - not really, Those spells were specifically designed to kill
: without much risk to yourself. I agree that they're overpowered, etc,
: etc, and dont like to use them myself except in emergencies (eg
: friends stuff decaying). But thats what OSI put them in for. I dont
Granted we'll never know, but I really think that these two spells
fall under the category of "They never dreamed they'd be used like
this" type of thing. Ya know what I mean? Kinda like escorting - someone
posted earlier that they believed the dev team probably thought people
wopuld actually walk their escorts around even :P
: know why they dont just get rid of the poison aspect - its the only
: real problem with them now, given that dispel is now an option for
: magic monsters.
Not really. Most people I watch do this do it in two waves. First they
trap the monster and have it blast them with spells to raise their resist
(which is no problem since the GH spell is so effective). Then, once
it is out of mana, they blade it.
: campaign to have the rules changed. Basically it just kills the
: 'world' a bit for me to watch someone turn someone else 'criminal' by
: hurling themselves into blades.
Do you remember when for a while those spells would start wildly
targetting any old thing, turning the caster grey? That acutally
is a pretty good solution as well. Fits my description of "wild magicks"
a bit more appropriately.
: I think the universe would end :). But its always harder to change a
: fait accompli.
I think it'd be easier just to wait for UO2 and hope they don't have
the gold faucets set to "maximum blast" :)
Jeff Gentry
: Which leads me to connclude that you're either stirring or being
: inconsistent with other views you've stated in the past.
Would I ever stir? :P
To be honest, and I've kinda alluded to this in this thread - I don't
view it as a "bad thing to do", but only because of the current situation
to begin with. I also don't view it as "NPKing". i *do* think that
it is a pretty sleazy practice ... I wouldn't go hunt down the people
that do it as I would a real NPK or a PK or something, but I wouldn't
say "hey, why don't you go jump people's blades? That's a kewL waY to
get PhAt LewT".
I guess the way to put it, is that on the surface I disagree with the
mechanics (turning someone else grey .... I'd rather the jumper turn
themselves grey and give the blader the option to attack) - but that
given the surrounding situation I see jumpers as a necessary evil.
: Hopefully - its a much better solution.
Just remove both spells :) Move Gate into EV's place, Recall into Blade's
place. Then put in a 7th and 4th circle spell.
Problem solved.
Jeff Gentry
: On 25 Jan 2000 18:06:27 GMT, gen...@rpi.edu (Jeff Gentry) wrote:
: >No, but he should actually have to *face* the monster, instead of killing
: >it without risk.
: They should. Pking them will not make them do this. And one reason
: they dont do this is because they're more vulnerable to PKs if they
: do. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
I seriously doubt that the #1 reason is that they might get PKd if they
fight face to face. I think it has more to do with the fact that it is
much easier to say "Vas Corp Por" in relative safety than to go hand to
hand with say - a balron.
: I dont like it either. But this is just rank profiteering - it doesnt
: fix the problem, and increases general mistrust of others.
*shrugs* Those people shouldn't be using such cheap methods of monster
harvesting anyhow. I really see both the blader and the jumper as just
different sides of the same coin. The side of the bladers seems to be
fairly hypocritical to me - they want to be able to slaughter things in
total safety for phat lewt, but yet can't stand the fact that others
are going to use similarly cheap tactics on them. Yeah, the jumper is
pretty sleazy, but he wouldnt' exist if the blader wasn't being sleazy
in the first place. Furthermore, arguements like "Blading is part of
the game" are moot because so is blade jumping *shrugs*
Both sides want "just rank profiteering" essentially. Both should be
removed - and the way to remove both is to take care of the bladers.
Otara
>If the spell attacks soemone else *shrugs*. I personally don't do it
>(well, unless the guy is on my 'to kill' list anyhow) because I
>don't view it as an attackable offense - but people who believe that
>all greys/reds should be attacked shouldn't have any problem with
>attacking bladers/EVers. oddly enough though - usually bladers/EVers
>think that all greys and reds should be attacked.
Hmm. I think the lawnmower example stands myself.
Myself, I think theres a difference between _being__ grey as a result
of your actions, and _making_ someone else go grey. Not to mention
that you have strongly argued against this view in the past.
Which leads me to connclude that you're either stirring or being
inconsistent with other views you've stated in the past.
>I dunno. There are still a billion, zillion people blading/EVing.
>Must be worth what "sledgehammer" is there.
Well - it doesnt fix the problem, and pisses a lot of people off.
Sledgehammers can often do this.
>: Ah well, PvP- will kill that little trick off.
>
>Yeah, hopefully they learn their lesson and take out risk-free
>monster harvesting.
Hopefully - its a much better solution.
Otara
Otara
>Otara (sp...@spammity.com.au) wrote:
>: I think its rather hypocritical. If he wants to PK people for doing
>: things he doesnt like, he could at least take the consequences that go
>: with it.
>
>If the monster hunter wants to kill monsters, he should at least take
>the consequences that go with it.
They're not designed to be the consequences that go with it. Its
taking advantage of a game feature designed to make PKing with those
spells dangerous.
Otara
Otara
>No, but he should actually have to *face* the monster, instead of killing
>it without risk.
They should. Pking them will not make them do this. And one reason
they dont do this is because they're more vulnerable to PKs if they
do. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
>People poke at PKs left and right for cheap shotting other players. For
>attacking characters who have no prayer of fighting back. And then
>they drop an EV on a liche lord in such a way that said monster can never
>begin to fight back.
I dont like it either. But this is just rank profiteering - it doesnt
fix the problem, and increases general mistrust of others.
Otara
Otara
>Otara (sp...@spammity.com.au) wrote:
>: They're not designed to be the consequences that go with it. Its
>
>Sure there are. Like "danger", "monster having the ability to fight
>back", etc. Bladers and the like are circumventing those.
Well - not really, Those spells were specifically designed to kill
without much risk to yourself. I agree that they're overpowered, etc,
etc, and dont like to use them myself except in emergencies (eg
friends stuff decaying). But thats what OSI put them in for. I dont
know why they dont just get rid of the poison aspect - its the only
real problem with them now, given that dispel is now an option for
magic monsters.
Punishing players for OSI putting in such crap AI and overpowerful
spells is not the way I like to address things - I'd much rather
campaign to have the rules changed. Basically it just kills the
'world' a bit for me to watch someone turn someone else 'criminal' by
hurling themselves into blades.
Anyhow, as always, people wlll only stop using this kind of PKing when
they cant do it any more. Might as well forget the morality
arguments.
>: taking advantage of a game feature designed to make PKing with those
>: spells dangerous.
>
>I'd personally just rather see them take those spells out of the game.
>That'd solve both problems with one toss of a stone. But then you'd
>see whining louder than Q can muster for the escorting thing.
I think the universe would end :). But its always harder to change a
fait accompli.
Otara
Otara
>I seriously doubt that the #1 reason is that they might get PKd if they
>fight face to face. I think it has more to do with the fact that it is
>much easier to say "Vas Corp Por" in relative safety than to go hand to
>hand with say - a balron.
Its not the number one reason - but it is _a_ reason.
>*shrugs* Those people shouldn't be using such cheap methods of monster
>harvesting anyhow. I really see both the blader and the jumper as just
>different sides of the same coin.
> The side of the bladers seems to be
>fairly hypocritical to me - they want to be able to slaughter things in
>total safety for phat lewt, but yet can't stand the fact that others
>are going to use similarly cheap tactics on them.
They're not killing other PC's. So its not the same.
> Yeah, the jumper is
>pretty sleazy, but he wouldnt' exist if the blader wasn't being sleazy
>in the first place. Furthermore, arguements like "Blading is part of
>the game" are moot because so is blade jumping *shrugs*
I rather suspect he would. Even if blades _was_ a dangerous spell to
use because the AI was better, or was much weaker, there would still
be people trying to jump on it in order to get free PK opportunities.
I also disagree that it has anything to do with 'balance' - it just
ensures that larger groups of people get to safely use it, and to
easily PK anyone who tries to use the same method in a given area.
And the whole idea of PKing someone because their playstyle annoys me
just doesnt work for me.
>Both sides want "just rank profiteering" essentially. Both should be
>removed - and the way to remove both is to take care of the bladers.
Another way is to balance blades and EV by having its damage lowered -
removing the poison aspect would go a long way IMO. Unfortunately,
this would do nothing to prevent jumpers.
Otara
Otara
>Granted we'll never know, but I really think that these two spells
>fall under the category of "They never dreamed they'd be used like
>this" type of thing. Ya know what I mean? Kinda like escorting - someone
>posted earlier that they believed the dev team probably thought people
>wopuld actually walk their escorts around even :P
Cheeky sod - that was me. Can you tell me what way blades could be
'properly' used as they currently exist? I've never been able to
think of one. Clearing vermin maybe.
>Not really. Most people I watch do this do it in two waves. First they
>trap the monster and have it blast them with spells to raise their resist
>(which is no problem since the GH spell is so effective). Then, once
>it is out of mana, they blade it.
That will certainly be what they will do if they dont it now. I still
think it wouldnt be that big a deal if the damage was lowered. If it
takes 15 blades to kill a dragon, it aint going to be quite so
popular. Magic creatures being able to meditate and move would help
too :).
>: campaign to have the rules changed. Basically it just kills the
>: 'world' a bit for me to watch someone turn someone else 'criminal' by
>: hurling themselves into blades.
>
>Do you remember when for a while those spells would start wildly
>targetting any old thing, turning the caster grey? That acutally
>is a pretty good solution as well. Fits my description of "wild magicks"
>a bit more appropriately.
Yeah but it makes it basically useless. And I just dont like making
it easier for people to attack other players. Always gets used
somehow.
>: I think the universe would end :). But its always harder to change a
>: fait accompli.
>
>I think it'd be easier just to wait for UO2 and hope they don't have
>the gold faucets set to "maximum blast" :)
Oh they will. Easiest way to get a bad review is if its too hard to
do anything quick. Inflation means itss going to be a case of winding
down gold mines as a game goes on for some time yet I think.
Otara
Jeff Gentry
: They're not killing other PC's. So its not the same.
*shrugs* PC, NPC, Monster. It is all one and the same as far as I'm
concerned. Especially in this context. They want cheap & easy money.
: I also disagree that it has anything to do with 'balance' - it just
: ensures that larger groups of people get to safely use it, and to
: easily PK anyone who tries to use the same method in a given area.
Interesting point, but i don't see much wrong with that. But I tend
to support the concept of "area ownership", "protection rackets" and
the like. But I know that you don't :)
Take SP shard. The GC guild from LS went there, and apparently now
pretty much "owns" Deceit. You pay them to go there. I think that is
pretty cool.
: And the whole idea of PKing someone because their playstyle annoys me
: just doesnt work for me.
I tend to do names myself :) I gave up years ago. Way to ofulltime a
job to take out every idiotic name in UO.
Jeff Gentry
: Cheeky sod - that was me. Can you tell me what way blades could be
: 'properly' used as they currently exist? I've never been able to
: think of one. Clearing vermin maybe.
I always thought of them as good emergency spells. Kinda like the
clearing vermin line. Same with fire fields ... same with hiding behind
a rock. IE if you're fighitng something, and 8 of its buds show up,
use it to give you a bit of respite to catch your breath and re-evaluate
the situation. Or a roomfull of rats. Etc.
I guess I would say, that given the way the spell exists *now*, using
it isn't inherently cheesy ... it is *over* using. IE using it as your
main PvM tactic.
: That will certainly be what they will do if they dont it now. I still
: think it wouldnt be that big a deal if the damage was lowered. If it
: takes 15 blades to kill a dragon, it aint going to be quite so
: popular. Magic creatures being able to meditate and move would help
: too :).
That would work. IMO bringing the spells in line with their equivalent
direct damage spelsl for damage would be fine. So blade would do total
damage equivalent to what a 5th circle should do (in between lightning
and ebolt? *shrug*). Basically, make it not fruitful to be a lifetime
blader.
: >I think it'd be easier just to wait for UO2 and hope they don't have
: >the gold faucets set to "maximum blast" :)
: Oh they will. Easiest way to get a bad review is if its too hard to
: do anything quick. Inflation means itss going to be a case of winding
: down gold mines as a game goes on for some time yet I think.
Yeah. It is obvious what the average player of these games wants. And
its "lots of loot, and NOW dammit!". Kinda like how when the NPC economy
actually *worked*, and everyone bitched at OSI for them to "fix it".
The problem? It worked so well that the NPCs didn't want to buy their
crap. Ah well. Somehow I have a feeling I'm going to *hate* UO2 :P
I'm really thinking that UO1 is my last MMPORPG in a good, long while.
I wonder if any of the large rp-orietned MU*'s still exist :)
Yuri Gorlinski
>
> Interesting point, but i don't see much wrong with that. But I tend
> to support the concept of "area ownership", "protection rackets" and
> the like. But I know that you don't :)
What's nice about territorial claims and
protection rackets is that they can provide
in-context motivations for player conflict,
something which UO has traditionally been
sorely lacking.
> Take SP shard. The GC guild from LS went there, and apparently now
> pretty much "owns" Deceit. You pay them to go there. I think that is
> pretty cool.
Heh. Technically, Shame is the dungeon
that's officially "owned" by the GC/OGD
alliance. Deceit has traditionally been
controlled by UDL but their grasp on it has
been slipping of late, to the point where
we're now confident in our ability to seize
control of it and rent it out in the same
manner that we have in the past rented out
Shame.
This sort of arrangement has proven to be
fairly beneficial for both parties, the renters
and the rentees.
yg
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Cortese
> Just remove both spells :) Move Gate into EV's place, Recall into Blade's
> place. Then put in a 7th and 4th circle spell.
>
> Problem solved.
an ogre, so it gets slammed in a hit or two from any monster that doesn't
dispell it. Poison is also nerfed such that it seems to only do about the
same damage as fireball. Haven't seen someone using EVs, but I would guess
they still work normally since I see a lot of Illustrious and Glorious
walking around.
It is almost to the point where if summon creature didn't have rabbits, but
would consistantly give you things like bears and giant serpents it would be
a better choice.
Richard Cortese
news:b16POKPckE+i9P...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:53:49 GMT, Yuri Gorlinski
> > What's nice about territorial claims and
> >protection rackets is that they can provide
> >in-context motivations for player conflict,
> >something which UO has traditionally been
> >sorely lacking.
>
> right. Lord knows there been enough motivation for that ingame
> already. Possession of Holy relics maybe?
>
> Anyhow, I found it a royal pain in the bum when guilds used to do the
> area rule thing on Napa - always felt like a gangster movie to me,
> rather than a fantasy setting.
Right after one of the TC wipes, I made a really fast run to covet III even
for me. Next day IIRC.
Since it was one of the few places in the game that was spawning level 8
scrolls and was pre-locked crates, I got numerous requests from people to
mark there/gate them there.
I don't know why, but I decided to call level 3 & 4 east a no PK area so the
shard could get on its feet faster. Anybody that wanted to could get a free
ride there to loot and pillage to their hearts content. PKs to, you just had
to PK somewhere else. It got to be the movers and shakers in game goal to
make it open.
We ended up with a pretty tough crew enforcing the no PK rule, by PKing
everyone that didn't follow it.<grin> During that worlds lifetime, several
guilds tried to claim it as their own, but ended up getting KOS and giving
up.
Really a stupid thing to do I think. I mean, I can't imagine Covet not being
a PK stomping ground, but we managed to do it one time in a dozen. Took a
lot of horsepower, some of the best guilds and players on TC to make it
work, but it did.
Otara
> What's nice about territorial claims and
>protection rackets is that they can provide
>in-context motivations for player conflict,
>something which UO has traditionally been
>sorely lacking.
I guess I'd like to see something a bit more complex than might makes
right. Lord knows there been enough motivation for that ingame
already. Possession of Holy relics maybe?
Anyhow, I found it a royal pain in the bum when guilds used to do the
area rule thing on Napa - always felt like a gangster movie to me,
rather than a fantasy setting.
Otara