FACELESS - You Are PK's Best Friend!
MarkTheShark
I am convinced that you are a PKs best friend. I wish you would step
in here and tell me it isn't so, but here's your HOC results:
1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
a) You start to run and WHAM, you are down more than 50% and
paralyzed. One more flamestrike and you are dead. This is because he
cast Explosion off screen and walked in and dropped it on you.
b) You start to cast recall or teleport and WHAM, you are interrupted,
you are down more than 50% and paralyzed.
2) You are going to allow paralyze to be resisted. Well most of the PK
victims have lower levels of resist because they are not power gamers
who exploit Wind mage bugs. So, your paralyze change again favors the
PKers (with high resist) who will now be impossible to STOP and kill
using paralyze.
If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
These ideas help stop rampant PKing.
As an alternate idea, but not as good, add a fireball-like effect to
the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
clue before it['s too late.
Mark
Jeff Gentry
: 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
: absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
: fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
that its "broken" now.
: victims have lower levels of resist because they are not power gamers
: who exploit Wind mage bugs. So, your paralyze change again favors the
Not all high resists exploit any bugs at all.
: If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
: the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
: Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
: have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
: only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
: those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
: the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
Resist has little if any affect on paralyze.
: the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
: clue before it['s too late.
If you're goinh gto die from an explosion/ebolt - it wouldn't
matter if you knew it was on the way or not (which was how
it used to work - you got the animation, then the damage ...
but you still bgot both damage at the same time).
Loki Dahlmarth, LS
Kevin Gee
i love these things
a PK shot me with a arrow once...my argument is we take out bows too
a PK killed me with a sword once....swords should be removed also
next it's going to be something like...
Dragons are too hard they need to have only 5hp because my new begger/vet
with 10 str can't kill it
Jeff Gentry <gen...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:7a2n3m$jkk$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
Richard Cortese
>
> MarkTheShark (mar...@erols.com) wrote:
> : 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
> : absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
> : fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
>
> This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
> weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
> were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
> that its "broken" now.
the way it works now.
What used to happen for an explosion or any other offensive spell for
that matter was as soon as you were sucessfully targetted, you got the
"BuTtMuNcH is attacking you!" message. You then had 4-5 secs to run off
the screen so you wouldn't be hit by the paralyze as the attacker went
into his casting dance.
If you like to anti as I used to, you could just stand there & drink a
GH as the damage was registered, then start fighting.
What happens now is BuTtMuNcH walks onto the screen, has already cast,
targeted you, and is casting his 2nd spell *BEFORE* you are even given
the warning of being attacked.
This is *absolutely* critical! It could not be any more f'd up.
Disaster! No small part of the previous method is you would auto defend.
Most of the time the PKs never got that 2nd spell off on my chrs w/o
being interupted by my bow.
Now when you see them walk on screen, you actually have to put your
weapon away since it is useless. Only thing you can do to defend is
survive.
The damn fast spell macro's I have seen so far go off faster then you
can cast heal or KOP, so you only have time to drink 1 greater heal. If
they have enough mana to take you down before the 10 second delay
between GHs, you are dead.
It is so easy now, my son is trying to talk me into going PK with him.
It is REALLY that tempting for 'young adults'.
>
> : victims have lower levels of resist because they are not power gamers
> : who exploit Wind mage bugs. So, your paralyze change again favors the
>
> Not all high resists exploit any bugs at all.
But all exploiters have high resistance. It isn't out of the question
for my chrs to naturally float around 70 resist just because I like
fighting magic users.
>
> : If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
> : the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
>
> Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
No! It now has delayed "You are being attacked!". It was changed.
>
> : Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
> : have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
> : only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
> : those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
> : the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
>
> Resist has little if any affect on paralyze.
Besides, this inverse resist, I don't know about that. That was really
reaching I think.
>
> : the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
> : clue before it['s too late.
>
> If you're goinh gto die from an explosion/ebolt - it wouldn't
> matter if you knew it was on the way or not (which was how
> it used to work - you got the animation, then the damage ...
> but you still bgot both damage at the same time).
>
> Loki Dahlmarth, LS
Spells seem to be more lethal. After posting I thought this was the
case, I went back to Baja to check it out. I don't seem to recall
killing every great hart with flame strikes & every boar with a single
ebolt, but my Baja chr's magery is a little high so I trotted one with
only 85 magery out on TC. Killed every great hart with FS, all boars but
one with ebolt, about 4 llamas all went down to single ebolts.
I can't recall offhand, but I think the minimum str for boars according
to stratics was something like 33 with a range up to 50ish. I thought
ebolts were supposed to do a range of damage with 40 tops.
I also cast chain lightning on liches. A few times a single chain
lightning left nothing but red after a single cast. I can't recall the
lich stats either, something like 80-120 str??? Anyway, chain lightning
has never done 80 points of damage for me from a mid 80 magery chr
before. After about a dozen liches, I am beginning to expect it. Only
one lich survived more then two CLs.
I also have seen a player with a mid 70s magery cast chain. Nothing!
Maybe 20-30 points of damage. There is something going on.
OSI is screwing with magery on some levels. I know there is a bug right
now on TC where gate scrolls aren't used up. I would guess when they
'fixed' explosion they rewrote a few of the other features of magic and
'fixed' them too.
MarkTheShark
>MarkTheShark (mar...@erols.com) wrote:
>: 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
>: absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
>: fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
>
>This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
>weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
>were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
>that its "broken" now.
>
But, for the longest time, explosion didn't work! It did no damage!
That's why it just became popular again. It did work like this a long
long time ago. I'm amazed they turned it back on.
>: If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
>: the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
>
>Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>
Again, it didn't do any damage for like 6 months.
>: Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
>: have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
>: only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
>: those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
>: the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
>
>Resist has little if any affect on paralyze.
>
Read the HOC log, they plan to make Paralyze resistable. This is why I
wrote this whole thing. Faceless is making a lot of changes in favor
of PKs.
>: the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
>: clue before it['s too late.
>
>If you're goinh gto die from an explosion/ebolt - it wouldn't
>matter if you knew it was on the way or not (which was how
>it used to work - you got the animation, then the damage ...
>but you still bgot both damage at the same time).
>
What happens now is someone comes on the screen and casts An Ex Por.
Then you get hit with an Explosion (because you didn't know it was
coming), and you're paralyzed. IF you've been fighting magic monsters
you are without reflect and probably down in hp. This is why ANY GM
mage PKer can take out someone with 68 resist in 2 shots.
If they added some sort of "fireball" art to the explosion then you
would know when it's coming, and be able to recall/reflect/teleport
before being paralyzed. It would help victims.
But, your point wi well taken and I've since been training resist
non-stop to help defend against this PK tactic. I would rather not
have to spend my time and money hitting myself with fireballs and
lightening bolts, but OSI's screw-ups always force me into un-natural
modes of play.
MarkTheShark
force the words of power to be cast on screen while the other player
is there. It's just too bent towards PKing...it has little use in
fighting monsters...
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 03:30:25 -0500, "Kevin Gee"
<kg...@columbus.rr.com.no.spam> wrote:
>BUT WE SHOULD CHANGE THE WHOLE GAME SO IT REVOLVES AROUND PKS!!!!!!!
>i love these things
>a PK shot me with a arrow once...my argument is we take out bows too
>a PK killed me with a sword once....swords should be removed also
>next it's going to be something like...
>Dragons are too hard they need to have only 5hp because my new begger/vet
>with 10 str can't kill it
>Jeff Gentry <gen...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
>news:7a2n3m$jkk$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
>>MarkTheShark (mar...@erols.com) wrote:
>>: 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
>>: absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
>>: fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
>>
>>This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
>>weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
>>were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
>>that its "broken" now.
>>
>>: victims have lower levels of resist because they are not power gamers
>>: who exploit Wind mage bugs. So, your paralyze change again favors the
>>
>>Not all high resists exploit any bugs at all.
>>
>>: If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
>>: the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
>>
>>Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>>
>>: Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
>>: have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
>>: only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
>>: those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
>>: the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
>>
>>Resist has little if any affect on paralyze.
>>
>>: the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
>>: clue before it['s too late.
>>
>>If you're goinh gto die from an explosion/ebolt - it wouldn't
>>matter if you knew it was on the way or not (which was how
>>it used to work - you got the animation, then the damage ...
>>but you still bgot both damage at the same time).
>>
>>Loki Dahlmarth, LS
>
>
MarkTheShark
my "inverse-resistence to paralyze" idea. I can kind of justify it as
a "strange effect of having too much magic resistence".
Your point about the young adults wanting to be PKs is right on. My
son is the exact same way, although he has learned that being
honorable and well respected is also fun. He keeps telling me that
Pking is "the only profitable way to play the game". Oh well, what do
I know. It IS VERY TEMPTING, but what legacy will we leave?
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:19:42 -0800, Richard Cortese
<rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
>Jeff Gentry wrote:
>>
>> MarkTheShark (mar...@erols.com) wrote:
>> : 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
>> : absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
>> : fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
>>
>> This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
>> weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
>> were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
>> that its "broken" now.
>> : victims have lower levels of resist because they are not power gamers
>> : who exploit Wind mage bugs. So, your paralyze change again favors the
>>
>> Not all high resists exploit any bugs at all.
>But all exploiters have high resistance. It isn't out of the question
>for my chrs to naturally float around 70 resist just because I like
>fighting magic users.
>>
>> : If you really want to help the game, then change Explosion so it isn't
>> : the PK tool that it is, even if it makes it useless.
>>
>> Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>No! It now has delayed "You are being attacked!". It was changed.
>>
>> : Also, perhaps make paralyze inverse-resistent. In other words, if you
>> : have high resist you could get easily paralyzed, while if you have
>> : only moderate resist you cannot be paralyzed. This would mean that
>> : those paralyzed have a good chance at resisting the next spells, while
>> : the low resisters cannot be paralyzed and clobbered.
>>
>> Resist has little if any affect on paralyze.
>Besides, this inverse resist, I don't know about that. That was really
>reaching I think.
>>
>> : the art to show an Explosion on the way. This would give victims a
>> : clue before it['s too late.
>>
>> If you're goinh gto die from an explosion/ebolt - it wouldn't
>> matter if you knew it was on the way or not (which was how
>> it used to work - you got the animation, then the damage ...
>> but you still bgot both damage at the same time).
>>
>> Loki Dahlmarth, LS
Richard Cortese
>
> BUT WE SHOULD CHANGE THE WHOLE GAME SO IT REVOLVES AROUND PKS!!!!!!!
> i love these things
> a PK shot me with a arrow once...my argument is we take out bows too
> a PK killed me with a sword once....swords should be removed also
> next it's going to be something like...
> Dragons are too hard they need to have only 5hp because my new begger/vet
> with 10 str can't kill it
turn into a red goat with claws & bad breath.
At least you can tell them to drop & cover the cost of the 40 heals it
took to tame them.
Richard Cortese
>
> Thank you for your well-thought-out comments. Too bad you don't like
> my "inverse-resistence to paralyze" idea. I can kind of justify it as
> a "strange effect of having too much magic resistence".
Even though I know Ultima is not AD&D, I still like the character/race
limits.
As such, I could see some system where there is a natural resistance to
magic like dwarfs, but people would jump on my case about "No dwarfs in
Ulitma!"<grin>.
It is tying the inverse resistance to resistance that I have a problem
with, not the concept of resistance to certain spells.
The new meditation thing is *GREAT* for someone that likes making
choices within the Ultima context of the demi god avatar. You are still
the same demi god killing machine, but you just change you suit of armor
for that red cape & change your style.
I also like some superficial at least reasons behind things where I can
can tell myself, "Ok, that would make sense". For instance, if you said
you have to believe in magic for it to work, ergo the higher your
intelligence and magery skill, the better it works against you I would
like it. Likewise the converse would be true, the less magic/int you
have, the less likely you are to be effected by magic.
This would have an added benefit of leveling the field a bit for newbie
chrs who in my experience have been the most frequent target of PKs.
Damocles
<rico...@netmagic.net> wrote:
>MarkTheShark wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for your well-thought-out comments. Too bad you don't like
>> my "inverse-resistence to paralyze" idea. I can kind of justify it as
>> a "strange effect of having too much magic resistence".
>Sometimes I get stuck in neutral & can't get in gear.
>
>Even though I know Ultima is not AD&D, I still like the character/race
>limits.
>
>As such, I could see some system where there is a natural resistance to
>magic like dwarfs, but people would jump on my case about "No dwarfs in
>Ulitma!"<grin>.
Wasn't it elves who had a natural resistance? It's been so long I
honestly forget.
Jeff Gentry
: But, for the longest time, explosion didn't work! It did no damage!
: That's why it just became popular again. It did work like this a long
: long time ago. I'm amazed they turned it back on.
Nope - it did damage. the damage was delayed :P This is, I believe,
the root of the "60 point ebolt cheats" that you'd hear - people
back then were doing the explosion/ebolt cobmo - however, since the
animation of the explosion spell came a full 3-4 seconds *before*
the damage, it made people think it was broken. It *was* broken with
mosnters, but not with players - "trust me".
: Again, it didn't do any damage for like 6 months.
Again, you're wrong.
: What happens now is someone comes on the screen and casts An Ex Por.
: Then you get hit with an Explosion (because you didn't know it was
: coming), and you're paralyzed. IF you've been fighting magic monsters
: you are without reflect and probably down in hp. This is why ANY GM
: mage PKer can take out someone with 68 resist in 2 shots.
Well - I don't use MR anyhow, so fighting magic monsters is moot.
68 resist is worthless against 6th circle offensive spells, so that
arguement is moot (since resist is "all or nothing" and not a
sliding scale for damage). Explosion/Ebolt on average will do
about 65 damage. If they're waiting for you to be low on health, that's
not a bug in the code, that's them waiting to cheap shot you.
Hell, I could wait until you were low on health and kill you with
one ebolt :P
I said it before - the explosion/ebolt combo has always existed, and
explosion always did damage. The difference was that it used to be
like this for explosion:
Cast->"You are being attacked"/Animation->delay->damage
Now it is:
Cast->delay->"You are being attacked"/Animation/Damage
With last target it was still trivial to explosion/ebolt someone,
despite the delay time they had to run. Healing was worthless
because they still took all 65 damage at once - thus my statement
that the only thing this changes is the 'surprsie factor' that went
in. The mega-damage combos are still the same.
: But, your point wi well taken and I've since been training resist
: non-stop to help defend against this PK tactic. I would rather not
: have to spend my time and money hitting myself with fireballs and
: lightening bolts, but OSI's screw-ups always force me into un-natural
: modes of play.
Don't macro resist and don't cheat it. Build it up naturally it *is*
possible. Of course, I've been playing since the first day of LS and
my resist is only about 90 ... i guess w/ macros or cheats i'd long
since be a GM. That's almost pure spell combat for me though.
LD
Lambert
I spent a little time playing around with different explosion combos, I
think this is the best one I found, it can do 100 damage (if not
resisted) and your target never has a chance to move, recall, run or
cast.
Start off with an explosion and follow up fast with a parlyze (not too
fast or you do it before the explosion hits) now throw down a purple and
cast explosion then flame strike. The purple explodes just before the
explosion and flamestrike hit.
Takes 100 mana to do it but its always fatal.
Embassy
http://uoss.stratics.com
Jeff Gentry
: Start off with an explosion and follow up fast with a parlyze (not too
: fast or you do it before the explosion hits) now throw down a purple and
: cast explosion then flame strike. The purple explodes just before the
: explosion and flamestrike hit.
Okay. Now this conversation is starting to sound like MK3 or Killer
Instinct .... "The 100% damage combo".
Of course, even in those games, the "100% damage combos" actually weren't
100% undefeatable - they only really caught those who didn't know how
to defend from them, and there *always* were ways.
For instance, in MK3 there was that one guy who had the 100% damage
combo that started with that tornado run or whatever it was (he
ran at you and you spun like a top for a bit). That really only caught
the newbies or the dumb.
LD
Thales (Ifurita)
>MarkTheShark (mar...@erols.com) wrote:
>: 1) You say Explosion is OK the way it is! Give me a break! It's
>: absolutely ridiculous. A guy walks into your screen while you're
>: fighting an air elemental. He casts An Ex Por...
>
>This has been possible since late fall, '97. Just because you
>weren't smart enough to figure out that combo pre-patch (nor
>were 99% of theo ther assmonkeys that play UO) doesn't mean
>that its "broken" now.
>
Just because it has been broken since then, doesn't mean it isn't
broken. I think Explosion should be made area affect, like a purple.
>Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>
Because it's broken.
Thales aka Ranger Ifurita of the Skara Rangers
Jaquar
Hmm, seem to work fine for me.
Jaquar of The Shadow's Soul
Guildmaster
Grandmaster Mage
Jeff Gentry
: Just because it has been broken since then, doesn't mean it isn't
: broken. I think Explosion should be made area affect, like a purple.
So "Broken" is defined as "I don't like it"? Yes - at one
point it did have the effect as a purple. That was "A Long
Time Ago". Then they changed it like it is. How is that
"Broken" and not "A Change"?
: >Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
: Because it's broken.
Again - I didn't know "Broken" means "Thales/Ifurita doesn't
like it" .... I could go pull up Webster again if you want ...
It *did* get a small power gain in the latest patch. However,
it did *not* become the super-duper-insta-death spell that everyone
claims it is. .... it was always that. Its just more noticable
now. At the same time, you see a lot less people claiming to have
been hit by repeated 60 point damage ebolts (aka the old exp/ebolt
combo that people didn't recognize)
Loki
Thales (Ifurita)
>
>Hmm, seem to work fine for me.
>
Because you like PvP. For a Non-PvPer, it's severely broken.
Two mages come on screen, I am immediately paralyzed, and I see Kal
Vas Flam appear over each of them. I still can't do anything. Then I
see the words "Corp Por" appear...Boom, boom, blast, blast. Unless
you have an incredibly high resist, you are dead...and you NEVER got a
chance to recall or run.
Broken.
Jeff Gentry
: Two mages come on screen, I am immediately paralyzed, and I see Kal
Two high circle mages *should* toast someone who is
a) unprepared for combat
b) not a strong combat character
Where do I get off saying this? From the same spot that you say that
the "old" (ie pre-last patch) implementation of explosion (which is
very similar to now) is "broken"
LD
Davian
>
> Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
> : >Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
> : Because it's broken.
>
> Again - I didn't know "Broken" means "Thales/Ifurita doesn't
> like it" .... I could go pull up Webster again if you want ...
>
All other spells do damage as the animation is played. Is it reasonable
to think that this one spell was *intended* to have delayed damage? Why
should it?
If it was not intended to do delayed damage, and it does... then it is
"broken" and should be fixed.
How long it has been broken is irrelevant.
Davian
Richard Cortese
> now. At the same time, you see a lot less people claiming to have
> been hit by repeated 60 point damage ebolts (aka the old exp/ebolt
> combo that people didn't recognize)
>
> Loki
the same performance from magic in the past? I never seem to recall
chain doing 100+ damage that a lich takes to go down. This was not a
double spell of explosion/chain, just a single chain spell & the lich
dropped like a bad habit.
It could be this worked like this all the time, but before liches
dispelled everything, my fav method of killing them was with summoned
elementals.
Davian
>
> Davian (tayl...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
> : All other spells do damage as the animation is played. Is it reasonable
> : to think that this one spell was *intended* to have delayed damage? Why
> : should it?
>
> the damage came delayed. Its now fixed. The delay isn't the
> broken part.
>
Okies. I haven't been keeping up on the exact argument... just
skipping around in the thread and saw this one.
> : How long it has been broken is irrelevant.
>
> My point was that he said the delay was the broken part.
> And I'm saying where does he get off saying that is "broken" ...
> other then the fact that he dislikes it. If that is what is
> intended, it works fine.
>
*nod* It's then a question of intent.
This is still the only spell where there is a delay, which makes me
question the existance of that intent.
I honestly think it was meant to be, like the other spells, a spell
doing damage right when it is cast. But only DD, or whatever programmer
put it in, could say for certain *shrug*
Davian
Jeff Gentry
: Nope, this is new Jeff. You are wrong about the way it used to work vs
: the way it works now.
No I'm not ...
: that matter was as soon as you were sucessfully targetted, you got the
: "BuTtMuNcH is attacking you!" message. You then had 4-5 secs to run off
: the screen so you wouldn't be hit by the paralyze as the attacker went
This is how it used to work to create the *exact* same effect:
1) BuTtMunCH is attacking you
2) You run to get away/ButTmunch casts Corp Por
3) ButTMunCh hits last target
4) You get hit with both spell damages at once - healing does nothing.
Thus my statement that if you died from the combo spell now
you will die from it then. Ack, my tenses are reversed :P
: If you like to anti as I used to, you could just stand there & drink a
: GH as the damage was registered, then start fighting.
No - both damages always hit at the same time. Healing did nothing.
I believe this is the root of the rumours of cheats that allowed
mega damage ebolts.
: Disaster! No small part of the previous method is you would auto defend.
: Most of the time the PKs never got that 2nd spell off on my chrs w/o
: being interupted by my bow.
As I said - if you die now you died then. Just no one used that combo
back then. However - I will grant you that you're down about 3 seconds
of reaction time if you aren't going ot be killed by those 2 spells.
: No! It now has delayed "You are being attacked!". It was changed.
Yes. But I'm saying that "its not that bad" ... people that died from
*just* those 2 spells die from *just* those 2 spells now. People who
didn't & don't lose about 3 seconds of reaction time - so yes,
it *has* increased in dangerousness - just it didn't become the
secret "instakill combo" that everyone is saying.
: Spells seem to be more lethal. After posting I thought this was the
I would agree with this. I think damage has increased and resisting
ability decreased. The first night after the aptch (I haven't played
much since hten due to RL issues) I know that one ebolt from me
brought *at least* 5 people to half helath ()and these are powergamed
PVP characters - and just the ones that I know were just my
ebolt hitting them) ...
given that they have to have at least 80-90 health .... that's
rough. I mean, ebolts always did 40, 50, even 60 in a few cases -
but their average was 333 or so for a GM mage (err 33). Now,
i dunno
LD
Name withheld
I would hope OSI doesnt.
Otara, Napa
Jeff Gentry
: All other spells do damage as the animation is played. Is it reasonable
: to think that this one spell was *intended* to have delayed damage? Why
: should it?
It was "broken" in the sense that the animation played and then
the damage came delayed. Its now fixed. The delay isn't the
broken part.
: How long it has been broken is irrelevant.
My point was that he said the delay was the broken part.
And I'm saying where does he get off saying that is "broken" ...
other then the fact that he dislikes it. If that is what is
intended, it works fine.
LD
Jeff Gentry
: Loki, killed a lich with a single chain lightning spell. Have you gotten
: the same performance from magic in the past? I never seem to recall
: chain doing 100+ damage that a lich takes to go down. This was not a
: double spell of explosion/chain, just a single chain spell & the lich
: dropped like a bad habit.
I did note elsewhere today that I think spell damage got beefed up
somehow with the latest patch ... *but* I also seem to remember that
in PVM spell damages already did more damage than in PVP - so it would
stand to reason that perhaps you hit the high end damage range of the
spell (which even before the last patch I had occassionaly hit 60-70
damage with chain/meteor), it did more due to PVM (i'm going on memory
here, could be wrong), and the beefed up (?) damage? Perhaps combined
with a liche on the low end of the health scale ...
who knows ... weird things like that *do* happen - I mean hell, once
I one-shotted a plate wearing guy with a single ebolt. Do the math,
that guy had at least 60 hp and probably more.
If you start making a habit out of it, then something is up ...
LD
Davian
I can't seem to find the message here, but I remember the post where
Richard told about it.
He didn't add it this time, but in the other one, he said it suprised
him so much he went around and did it about 6 more times.... IIRC, 5
times the lich died from one hit, and the one time it survived, it was
completley red in the life bar.
Davian
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:48:32 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>
>>
>>Hmm, seem to work fine for me.
>>
>Because you like PvP. For a Non-PvPer, it's severely broken.
>
>Two mages come on screen, I am immediately paralyzed, and I see Kal
>Vas Flam appear over each of them. I still can't do anything. Then I
>see the words "Corp Por" appear...Boom, boom, blast, blast. Unless
>you have an incredibly high resist, you are dead...and you NEVER got a
>chance to recall or run.
>
>Broken.
It is a spell. What do you want it to do? Not only is it not broken
but it functions exactly how it should. This whole thing sounds like
more of a pk complaint than anything.
Jaquar
wrote:
>Jeff Gentry wrote:
>>
>> Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>> : >Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>> : Because it's broken.
>>
>> Again - I didn't know "Broken" means "Thales/Ifurita doesn't
>> like it" .... I could go pull up Webster again if you want ...
>>
>
>All other spells do damage as the animation is played. Is it reasonable
>to think that this one spell was *intended* to have delayed damage? Why
>should it?
>
>If it was not intended to do delayed damage, and it does... then it is
>"broken" and should be fixed.
>
>How long it has been broken is irrelevant.
>
>Davian
The animation is played when the spell goes off. Think of it like
throwing a grenade.
Sam Woodchopper
Aren't all non-PvP players newbies in PvP? And if they are,
this is an "always-death" combo for every non-PvP player out
there and don't be surpriced there are a lot of them! Hence:
Fix this! I have a hard time already with all that PK
roaming the lands.
Don't get me wrong, I do not mind being killed on an
occasion, but give me my right to run away (or at least try
to run away). Do not take that last thing that is left for
me away!
Just my 2 cents
Sam Woodchopper, Drachenfels
"This weeks special: 10 Sledge hammers GM made 280 gold"
www.wish.net/~petertje
Jaquar
To say "fix" is to imply that it is broken. Maybe a better term would
be "change"
Faerlyt
Jaquar wrote:
I'd think of it as a grenade if I got a message saying that I'm being
attacked as soon as I saw him throwing the grenade. NOT as soon as it blew up
at my feet.
- Faerlyt
Davian
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:01:25 +0100, Sam Woodchopper
> <pete...@wish.net> wrote:
>
> >> That really only caught the newbies or the dumb
> >
> >Aren't all non-PvP players newbies in PvP? And if they are,
> >this is an "always-death" combo for every non-PvP player out
> >there and don't be surpriced there are a lot of them! Hence:
> >Fix this! I have a hard time already with all that PK
> >roaming the lands.
> >
>
> To say "fix" is to imply that it is broken. Maybe a better term would
> be "change"
>
Semantics.
The sentiment, and the point are unchanged.
Zaphkiel
>Think of it like
>throwing a grenade.
Think of it as throwing an invisible grenade, that follows the person
around until it goes off, and allows you to attack twice without warning.
Think of it as a *great* sneak attack. The people who enjoy sneak
attacks, love it the way it is now.
--Zaphkiel
Jeff Gentry
: Think of it as throwing an invisible grenade, that follows the person
: around until it goes off, and allows you to attack twice without warning.
: Think of it as a *great* sneak attack. The people who enjoy sneak
: attacks, love it the way it is now.
Except that it is only a single "sneak attack". I can devise a half
dozen plots do exact similar "sneak attacks" that work just fine as
well - yet I don't hear you complaining about those. Even at the
GM mage level, the damage average for an explosion spell is low-30's.
That means that you're probably taking 25-30 damage on the average
cast ... That's not *that* much of a "sneak attack".
It is slightly more dangerous now than it was before. It didn't suddenly
become some super duper killing machine with the latest patch.
LD
Thales (Ifurita)
>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Two mages come on screen, I am immediately paralyzed, and I see Kal
>
>Two high circle mages *should* toast someone who is
>a) unprepared for combat
>b) not a strong combat character
>
>
>Where do I get off saying this? From the same spot that you say that
>the "old" (ie pre-last patch) implementation of explosion (which is
>very similar to now) is "broken"
>
>LD
Explain, in detail, how a lone person can be prepared for this, short
of being GM resist and/or already having KOP prepared?
They BOTH cast PLyze offscreen and both hit you with it. Your reflect
takes one for the second it takes him to magic trap himself out of it,
which might give you a chance to run...but if you are on only an
average connection with lag the way it is, that is maybe a 50/50
proposition. If you are a pure warrior with no magic, then reduce
that chance to near zero.
Most of the people I've engaged in PvP against have FAR better
connections than I do. While fighting Paul Atreides, I ran on my
horse away from him through a clear area...he not only caught me, but
had time to stop and hit me with a second ebolt before I got out of
his range again....
The reason I don't play Quake I, II or whatever is hat I don't have a
Pentium 450 overclocked to 650 with a RivaTNT card with 16 megs of
graphics and a ping rate of 20 over 2 hops to the damn server.
I've always thought combat in UO is too fast and too imbalanced --
nothing I've seen in the last 6 months has changed that opinion. All
the different methods of killing each other are just balanced against
one another now.
What the hell, this post is long enough...WHY give players the option
of starting with a 10 Strenght?! My god, what a misleading annoyingly
stupid decision that one little thing is! When I first began playing
UO, I started with a 30 Strength...because my vision of my character
was that he was STRONG! HA!
Enough...I'm in a rotten mood and this isn't helping.
Jeff Gentry
: travel in groups of 20 and hasn't powergamed his perfect PvP
: character. Despite my association with the Rangers, that is what I am
I agree with you on the 'perfect pvp' part - but I disagree with the
notion that lone wolves should be viable options in a fight -
whether they wanted one or not. RPGs have alays been about parties.
Find friends, is my belief.
: Seriously, the functionality of the spell is broken. I use it. I
: like how it works. Hell, I went Red because of it saturday! But that
Again - you're playing semantics on "Broken". Define "broken".
Most of the things you list they said were not supposed to be -
that is, the fact you could do them meant they were "broken".
Some things (like explosion, healing liches, etc) weren't
*intended* - which means they *aren't* broken, you just disagree
with their viability as a game mechanic. That's a subtle difference.
The Dev Team is the only one with the right to say if something
is "broken" or not.
: doesn't mean it isn't broken. There are a LOT of things I like in
: this game that are broken. I liked Tab-Tab-Hide. It was broken. I
: liked Alchemy with 8 Mortars. It was broken. I liked Liches that
: cast Greater Heal on themselves. They were Broken. I liked Balrons
: that gave 22k when you blade spirited them to death. It was broken.
: Need more examples?
Yes. I only see 2 things on this list that were truly "broken".
1 of these was actually a Good Thing (the liches) and the rest
were just crappy things.
LD
Thales (Ifurita)
>
>It is a spell. What do you want it to do? Not only is it not broken
>but it functions exactly how it should. This whole thing sounds like
>more of a pk complaint than anything.
>
>
>Guildmaster
>Grandmaster Mage
PKs suck ass. Always have, always will. I hate them. Do I want them
banned? No...at least not if they don't cheat. But I don't LIKE
them. My sympathies will always lie with the solo player who does not
travel in groups of 20 and hasn't powergamed his perfect PvP
character. Despite my association with the Rangers, that is what I am
(well, except the powergaming part...I have started doing that since
joining the Rangers).
Seriously, the functionality of the spell is broken. I use it. I
like how it works. Hell, I went Red because of it saturday! But that
Thales (Ifurita)
>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Just because it has been broken since then, doesn't mean it isn't
>: broken. I think Explosion should be made area affect, like a purple.
>
>So "Broken" is defined as "I don't like it"? Yes - at one
>point it did have the effect as a purple. That was "A Long
>Time Ago". Then they changed it like it is. How is that
>"Broken" and not "A Change"?
>
I never used it until recently. Never saw it function as a Purple
before. C'est la vie.
>: >Its always had a delayed damage. Why change it now?
>: Because it's broken.
>
>Again - I didn't know "Broken" means "Thales/Ifurita doesn't
>like it" .... I could go pull up Webster again if you want ...
>
>It *did* get a small power gain in the latest patch. However,
>it did *not* become the super-duper-insta-death spell that everyone
>claims it is. .... it was always that. Its just more noticable
>now. At the same time, you see a lot less people claiming to have
>been hit by repeated 60 point damage ebolts (aka the old exp/ebolt
>combo that people didn't recognize)
>
>Loki
I am not complaining because of the last patch. I'm complaining
because I've finally decided to make a mage character who can cast
these spells and I realise how broken it is.
Thales (Ifurita)
>Davian (tayl...@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
>: All other spells do damage as the animation is played. Is it reasonable
>: to think that this one spell was *intended* to have delayed damage? Why
>: should it?
>
>It was "broken" in the sense that the animation played and then
>the damage came delayed. Its now fixed. The delay isn't the
>broken part.
>
>: How long it has been broken is irrelevant.
>
>My point was that he said the delay was the broken part.
>And I'm saying where does he get off saying that is "broken" ...
>other then the fact that he dislikes it. If that is what is
>intended, it works fine.
>
>LD
Fine. Let's try it this way.
You have 2 6th circle spells. Both cost 20 Mana. Both do
approximately the same damage. One costs 8 gold, is a direct attack
and can therefore (in the future at least) be partially blocked by a
shield. The other costs 11 gold and is an indirect attack with
delayed damage/agressor flag. It cannot be parried using a shield.
Since the Shield Parry is being put in mostly to counteract energy
bolt's effectiveness, having a second 6th level spell that mimicks
it's effects but cannot be parried AND has a delay for setting the
aggressor flag is not correct. This means that one of several things
needs to happen:
a) Increase Energy Bolts effectiveness to offset the increased
usefulness of Explosion.
b) Decrease the amount of Damage Explosion does.
c) Change the way one or both spells operate so both are balanced vs.
one another so that a mage doesn't necessarily always use one or the
other.
Thales (Ifurita)
Post your half dozen so I can lobby to get those fixed too. :)
Sam Woodchopper
Aren't all non-PvP players newbies in PvP? And if they are,
this is an "always-death" combo for every non-PvP player out
there and don't be surpriced there are a lot of them! Hence:
Change this! I have a hard time already with all that PK
roaming the lands.
Don't get me wrong, I do not mind being killed on an
Thales (Ifurita)
Broken in the context I have been using is "out of balance when
compared to other capabilities in the game".
I'm not trying to play word games -- I am attempting to get across the
concept that this particular item does not balance well. You are
arguing not that it balances well, but that it should remain unchanged
and are using sematics and definitions to try to deflate my argument.
You have not attempted to convince me that it is not broken (see above
definition), only that in your opinion there is nothing wrong with it.
It is your belief that a solo-player should not have the option to
survive versus multiple combatants long enough to be able to get to
safety. I vehemently disagree with this stance. Obviously, we will
not be able to come to an agreement.
Jeff Gentry
: This is still the only spell where there is a delay, which makes me
: question the existance of that intent.
Like I said, originally it had an effect like a purple potion - it also
had poor damage and thus almost no one used it. It wasn't until a while
later when someone pointed out the exp/ebolt combo (pre-patch version)
to me that I realized it had changed. However, at the time - many
spells had their effects changed without any mention ... and this
one is way too drastic for it to have been a minor tweak (I just don't
see how an 'uh oh' can change an area effect explosion to the delayed
damage effect :) ...
Another example is that EField used to do damage, then one day
it turned into a wall of stone.
LD
Jeff Gentry
: Aren't all non-PvP players newbies in PvP? And if they are,
: this is an "always-death" combo for every non-PvP player out
: there and don't be surpriced there are a lot of them! Hence:
: roaming the lands.
Wouldn't a lifetime trained knight make total mincemeat out of
a serf? Wouldn't a master samurai annihilate a peasant?
Yes.
A well trained combat character *should* walk all over a non-PvP
character.
And, as I've postedm any many times, I do not see a PK problem,
even while playing my non-combatant type characters, my newbies,
my 'other characters', etc. Outside of 3 discrete itmes since the
start of the rep system, the only time I've been attacked has been
with my main character - and all but 2 discrete times with him has the
attacker been either someone who already dislikes me or someone
who attacked due to my baiting (being grey, etc)
Loki D
Jeff Gentry
: Explain, in detail, how a lone person can be prepared for this, short
: of being GM resist and/or already having KOP prepared?
Equipment, attitude, look, etc ... all these create an indirect
preparedness. I've oft wondered why it is that I can take an ear
newbie to the same places that people complain about PK problems
and never encounter a problem. Either they're exagerating or there's
a lot to this "way you look" business.
Regardless, there are a lot of little tricks you can use with your
equipment loadout to increase your chances of living (magic trap
for instance).
: They BOTH cast PLyze offscreen and both hit you with it. Your reflect
: takes one for the second it takes him to magic trap himself out of it,
: which might give you a chance to run...but if you are on only an
: average connection with lag the way it is, that is maybe a 50/50
: proposition. If you are a pure warrior with no magic, then reduce
: that chance to near zero.
So you're saying that 2 high circle mages who get the jump on a
lone warrior with little means of healing himself, who have better
connections than said lone warrior *shouldn't* wipe the floor with
him? Come on!
This is a perfect example of why you should *form parties*. You know -
find others to adventure with? It would solve a lot of these
"I was all by my lonesome and 15 guys came up and killed me" arguements.
This is a social game - as much as people complain about "antisocial
PKs" there are sure a lot of freakin "antisocial" people who'se
antisocialness is manifested in lone wolfing.
: Most of the people I've engaged in PvP against have FAR better
: connections than I do. While fighting Paul Atreides, I ran on my
To be fair, Paul is one of the fastest people out there - if you take
fast walk out of the equation. Before Fastwalk became something
that more than 3 people in all of UO used, Paul and his other
char were *freakin fast*. At the time I had a great connection
combined with my great machine, and I *usually* couldn't keep up
with him, and I was the only one in my group of friends who ever
had a chance. That's kind of a bad example to use because he is
definatley *not* the norm for a pk's connection.
In fact, I'll counter your anecodtal evidence by citing Account Blocked,
who plays with 200-300 ms pings ....
: horse away from him through a clear area...he not only caught me, but
: had time to stop and hit me with a second ebolt before I got out of
: his range again....
In beta, a guy cheated me out of a horse - i had a halberd. Within 5 screens
I had killed him despite him being in a full gallop. Just because I
had single digit pings doesn't make me a bastard ... not my fault
I'm much quicker.
Tell me how you would design a real time game with a real time combat
system for thousands of people at once without having machine quality
and connection speed matter a lot - directly *or* indirectly.
: The reason I don't play Quake I, II or whatever is hat I don't have a
: Pentium 450 overclocked to 650 with a RivaTNT card with 16 megs of
: graphics and a ping rate of 20 over 2 hops to the damn server.
I do just fine with my 230ms pings ....
: I've always thought combat in UO is too fast and too imbalanced --
: nothing I've seen in the last 6 months has changed that opinion. All
: the different methods of killing each other are just balanced against
: one another now.
I think that its "too fast" but - at the same time the slowing down of
combat in UO has just made it harder and harder to be a "tough fighter" -
that is, with every passing "slowing down", it flattens the skill
bell curve a bit, such that more and more people are simply "average".
A good example .... back at the start of LS (and also on chessy,
where I had a char) I routinely would fight and take on 5-10 people
and come out the victor. This isn't using the "run around like an idiot
for 15 minutes until you get one alone" method - this is straight up
fighting.
Now, with essentially the same char, I have trouble killing one
person.
Hell, my favorite battle of all time was when I was attacked by
4 pks and all 4 were dead in less than 10 seconds.
Yes, things are more "balanced" but it becomes nearly impossible to have
ubermen out there ... which is something that I think *should* exist.
Then again, no one likes it when *they* aren't the uberman ...
: stupid decision that one little thing is! When I first began playing
: UO, I started with a 30 Strength...because my vision of my character
: was that he was STRONG! HA!
At one point, 30 strength wasn't all that super bad. My chessy mage
who routinely took on 4-1 or worse odds never broke 40 strenght.
Some of the all time best PKs on LS .... you'd be surprised if you
knew their strengths. Its not all about your strength, there are
other things that count as well ...
LD
Jeff Gentry
: Broken in the context I have been using is "out of balance when
: compared to other capabilities in the game".
Okay, geesh :) How many times did I ask you for your definition
of "Broken"? :)
: You have not attempted to convince me that it is not broken (see above
: definition), only that in your opinion there is nothing wrong with it.
You never defined broken ...
: It is your belief that a solo-player should not have the option to
: survive versus multiple combatants long enough to be able to get to
: safety. I vehemently disagree with this stance. Obviously, we will
: not be able to come to an agreement.
Even now, a solo character isn't 100% dead - however they're at a
*severe* disadvantage, and that's how it should be ... severity sharply
increasing as the number of attackers increases. I don't see how this
could possibly be otherwise. If you have 2-3 high level, *competent*
attackers on a single, *poorly skilled* defender - said defender should
be dead - no ifs, ands or buts.
LD
Jeff Gentry
: Post your half dozen so I can lobby to get those fixed too. :)
There's a distinct reason why I skirted around the details here :P
Furthermore, there's a distinct reason why I don't make a habit
of using them ... I tend not to often use my super-duper combat
tricks until I see them in common use, I don't wanna give the
pudwacks more things to use against innocents and myself :)
LD
Jeff Gentry
: You have 2 6th circle spells. Both cost 20 Mana. Both do
: approximately the same damage. One costs 8 gold, is a direct attack
: and can therefore (in the future at least) be partially blocked by a
: shield. The other costs 11 gold and is an indirect attack with
: delayed damage/agressor flag. It cannot be parried using a shield.
You said it right there. Explosion costs more :)
Really - until they put in the parry thing, the delay is the *only*
difference between the two spells. They want to increase
spell diversity not decrease it.
Personally, I'd prefer it ot be the original way - same with EField.
: Since the Shield Parry is being put in mostly to counteract energy
: bolt's effectiveness, having a second 6th level spell that mimicks
: it's effects but cannot be parried AND has a delay for setting the
: aggressor flag is not correct. This means that one of several things
: needs to happen:
well, would you be happy if the agressor flag was put on the actual
target? Know what? I would be too. Course I'm not unhappy now.
What I like is the *effect* of the explosion - that being that I can
double up exp/ebolt damage ... and I've been able to do that for quite
a while now.
LD
Name withheld
>Even now, a solo character isn't 100% dead - however they're at a
>*severe* disadvantage, and that's how it should be ... severity sharply
>increasing as the number of attackers increases. I don't see how this
>could possibly be otherwise. If you have 2-3 high level, *competent*
>attackers on a single, *poorly skilled* defender - said defender should
>be dead - no ifs, ands or buts.
But...:)
Given that it is quite possible to program it so that this isnt the case, it
isnt a case of 'should' - its a case of thats what _you_ want. Others of
course, dont :).
Otara, Napa
who has had quite enough group caused deaths in his career.
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>On 15 Feb 1999 23:33:37 GMT, gen...@rpi.edu (Jeff Gentry) wrote:
>
>>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>>: Two mages come on screen, I am immediately paralyzed, and I see Kal
>>
>>Two high circle mages *should* toast someone who is
>>a) unprepared for combat
>>b) not a strong combat character
>>
>>
>>Where do I get off saying this? From the same spot that you say that
>>the "old" (ie pre-last patch) implementation of explosion (which is
>>very similar to now) is "broken"
>>
>>LD
>
>Explain, in detail, how a lone person can be prepared for this, short
>of being GM resist and/or already having KOP prepared?
>
>They BOTH cast PLyze offscreen and both hit you with it. Your reflect
>takes one for the second it takes him to magic trap himself out of it,
>which might give you a chance to run...but if you are on only an
>average connection with lag the way it is, that is maybe a 50/50
>proposition. If you are a pure warrior with no magic, then reduce
>that chance to near zero.
>
>Most of the people I've engaged in PvP against have FAR better
>connections than I do. While fighting Paul Atreides, I ran on my
>horse away from him through a clear area...he not only caught me, but
>had time to stop and hit me with a second ebolt before I got out of
>his range again....
>
>The reason I don't play Quake I, II or whatever is hat I don't have a
>Pentium 450 overclocked to 650 with a RivaTNT card with 16 megs of
>graphics and a ping rate of 20 over 2 hops to the damn server.
Hey now! Everyone knows you woult use dual Voodoo II cards... lAMeR
j/k
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:49:04 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>>
>>It is a spell. What do you want it to do? Not only is it not broken
>>but it functions exactly how it should. This whole thing sounds like
>>more of a pk complaint than anything.
>>
>>
>>Jaquar of The Shadow's Soul
>>Guildmaster
>>Grandmaster Mage
>
>PKs suck ass. Always have, always will. I hate them. Do I want them
>banned? No...at least not if they don't cheat. But I don't LIKE
>them. My sympathies will always lie with the solo player who does not
>travel in groups of 20 and hasn't powergamed his perfect PvP
>character. Despite my association with the Rangers, that is what I am
>(well, except the powergaming part...I have started doing that since
>joining the Rangers).
People can jump on me for this but I have no sympathy for solo gamers.
UO is about the multiplayer experience. When I mine, I have guards.
When I adventure, I do it with a friend. That is what it is all
about.
>Seriously, the functionality of the spell is broken. I use it. I
>like how it works. Hell, I went Red because of it saturday! But that
>doesn't mean it isn't broken. There are a LOT of things I like in
>this game that are broken. I liked Tab-Tab-Hide. It was broken. I
>liked Alchemy with 8 Mortars. It was broken. I liked Liches that
>cast Greater Heal on themselves. They were Broken. I liked Balrons
>that gave 22k when you blade spirited them to death. It was broken.
>Need more examples?
Your examples are mixed. I can agree with some and not with others.
Explosion feels perfect to me. Sorry but we will have to agree to
disagree.
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>On 16 Feb 1999 21:18:00 GMT, gen...@rpi.edu (Jeff Gentry) wrote:
>
>Broken in the context I have been using is "out of balance when
>compared to other capabilities in the game".
>
>I'm not trying to play word games -- I am attempting to get across the
>concept that this particular item does not balance well. You are
>arguing not that it balances well, but that it should remain unchanged
>and are using sematics and definitions to try to deflate my argument.
>You have not attempted to convince me that it is not broken (see above
>definition), only that in your opinion there is nothing wrong with it.
>
>It is your belief that a solo-player should not have the option to
>survive versus multiple combatants long enough to be able to get to
>safety. I vehemently disagree with this stance. Obviously, we will
>not be able to come to an agreement.
This what I honestly don't understand. UO is not about solo
adventuring. When you leave the city by yourself shouldn't you assume
part of the blame for putting yourself in a dangerous situation?
Jaquar
>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>: Broken in the context I have been using is "out of balance when
>: compared to other capabilities in the game".
>
>Okay, geesh :) How many times did I ask you for your definition
>of "Broken"? :)
>
>: You have not attempted to convince me that it is not broken (see above
>: definition), only that in your opinion there is nothing wrong with it.
>
>You never defined broken ...
>
>: It is your belief that a solo-player should not have the option to
>: survive versus multiple combatants long enough to be able to get to
>: safety. I vehemently disagree with this stance. Obviously, we will
>: not be able to come to an agreement.
>
>Even now, a solo character isn't 100% dead - however they're at a
>*severe* disadvantage, and that's how it should be ... severity sharply
>increasing as the number of attackers increases. I don't see how this
>could possibly be otherwise. If you have 2-3 high level, *competent*
>attackers on a single, *poorly skilled* defender - said defender should
>be dead - no ifs, ands or buts.
>
>LD
I'll go a step further and ask a question or two.
If a pk takes your solo adventurer down one on one, is it fair?
If a pk takes down your whole party by himself, is it fair?
Jaquar
>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>: You have 2 6th circle spells. Both cost 20 Mana. Both do
>: approximately the same damage. One costs 8 gold, is a direct attack
>: and can therefore (in the future at least) be partially blocked by a
>: shield. The other costs 11 gold and is an indirect attack with
>: delayed damage/agressor flag. It cannot be parried using a shield.
>
>You said it right there. Explosion costs more :)
>
>Really - until they put in the parry thing, the delay is the *only*
>difference between the two spells. They want to increase
>spell diversity not decrease it.
>
I personally find that Jaq does more damage with explosions
Jan Gustavsson
That is, as soon as you play UO you play with all the rest of the players.
When you se other you can choose to stop and talk or run as fast as
possible.
The broblem is that people act as jerks. I wolud love it if they said "Hi,
sorry but I have to kill you".
And I would be even happier if the PK ressurected me after he had taken the
stuff he wanted. Then I could get the he left on my corp.
A real nice PK that would be.
Janne
Jaquar wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:13:53 GMT, fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com
> (Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 14:49:04 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
> >>
> >>It is a spell. What do you want it to do? Not only is it not broken
> >>but it functions exactly how it should. This whole thing sounds like
> >>more of a pk complaint than anything.
> >>
> >>
> >>Jaquar of The Shadow's Soul
> >>Guildmaster
> >>Grandmaster Mage
> >
> >PKs suck ass. Always have, always will. I hate them. Do I want them
> >banned? No...at least not if they don't cheat. But I don't LIKE
> >them. My sympathies will always lie with the solo player who does not
> >travel in groups of 20 and hasn't powergamed his perfect PvP
> >character. Despite my association with the Rangers, that is what I am
> >(well, except the powergaming part...I have started doing that since
> >joining the Rangers).
>
> People can jump on me for this but I have no sympathy for solo gamers.
> UO is about the multiplayer experience. When I mine, I have guards.
> When I adventure, I do it with a friend. That is what it is all
> about.
>
> >Seriously, the functionality of the spell is broken. I use it. I
> >like how it works. Hell, I went Red because of it saturday! But that
> >doesn't mean it isn't broken. There are a LOT of things I like in
> >this game that are broken. I liked Tab-Tab-Hide. It was broken. I
> >liked Alchemy with 8 Mortars. It was broken. I liked Liches that
> >cast Greater Heal on themselves. They were Broken. I liked Balrons
> >that gave 22k when you blade spirited them to death. It was broken.
> >Need more examples?
>
> Your examples are mixed. I can agree with some and not with others.
> Explosion feels perfect to me. Sorry but we will have to agree to
> disagree.
>
Jaquar
everything you say. His goal was to get on the bounty board. For
weeks he would talk then attempt to kill. He would get a few
sentences out and after a week or so went red. After that he couldn't
even speak anymore because they ran, so he started roleplaying with
the ghost afterward. He would res and gate. Know what? He quit
because no one would bounty him significantly because he was nice to
them. He had around 50 kills when he quit. Ironic isn't it?
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:59:01 +0100, Jan Gustavsson <jan...@lin.foa.se>
wrote:
Corwin of Amber (Wind Elders, ATL)
>because no one would bounty him significantly because he was nice to
>them. He had around 50 kills when he quit. Ironic isn't it?
Not really. Hardly anyone bounties anyone anymore, because the killers
or their friends too often get the $$$.
Heck, I stopped giving murder counts to people with 100's of them
already. Why bother? It's just helping them get to the top of the
scoreboard ...
Driakos
Jaquar wrote in message
>Your examples are mixed. I can agree with some and not with others.
>Explosion feels perfect to me. Sorry but we will have to agree to
>disagree.
Perfect explosion spell to me would go off instantly, and affect everything
in a 9 square area. As it is now it is a Greater Explosion potion... for 20
mana... without the radius. It even counts down the same way.... just no
numbers.
Driakos.
Jaquar
He went red within a week of the patch. Like I said, go figure. When
he finally killed off the guy and turned in the head the bounty was
under a k.
Thales (Ifurita)
>I'll go a step further and ask a question or two.
>
>If a pk takes your solo adventurer down one on one, is it fair?
Depends. Did it take more than 10 seconds? If not, then no...it
wasn't.
>
>If a pk takes down your whole party by himself, is it fair?
If a single PK can take out a group of prepared and skilled
adventurers, I would say he's cheating...except that it is entirely
possible he wasn't.
PvP is an entirely different game than PvM and the characters I
thought were great before now that I PvP more often I realise pretty
much sucked.
Is it fair? No...life isn't fair. Games SHOULD be. Or perhaps you
ENJOY playing russia in a Game of Axis and Allies?
Thales (Ifurita)
>
>This what I honestly don't understand. UO is not about solo
>adventuring. When you leave the city by yourself shouldn't you assume
>part of the blame for putting yourself in a dangerous situation?
>
people (nameless to most players because of their style of play) who
do it should not be forced into playing the game in your style.
Thales (Ifurita)
>
>I personally find that Jaq does more damage with explosions
>
following:
Agility on a Target (immediately drops their stamina, or takes away
Reflect)
Paralyze
Explosion
Energy Bolt
Energy Bolt
Once things got REALLY bad, this would take out one of them every 30
seconds or so....and with the 40+ people/corpses/horses on screen, lag
was so bad that they usually didn't even know which person was
attacking and they could run fast enough.
While doing this, I noticed that explosion would usually do about
40-50% Damage and ebolt would do about 25-35% damage. Maybe I was
getting weird numbers....but there it is.
Jeff Gentry
: No. This is a perfectly viable style of playing this game and the
: people (nameless to most players because of their style of play) who
: do it should not be forced into playing the game in your style.
PKing and gangbanging is a perfectly viable style of playing this game
and the people who do it should not be forced into not killing you
and your gaming style.
Okay, that was facetious.
I had a conversation with Jaq today in ICQ about this.
I stated that back in beta there was a lot of talk about what sort
of character you wished to roleplay ... a lot moreso than now. And
the two most common character archetypes I heard were along the lines of:
"A psycho killer who only is loyal to his boyz and kills everyone else"
and
"A loner who sticks to himself, etc etc"
The former has obvious appeals to a certain crowd, and the latter is
generally the style of character that some of the more popular fantasy
fiction characters are (Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, for instnace -
the 'reluctant hero', etc).
Both are *not* good for a social game such as UO, at least in
large amounts. Sure, it's great to have a small portion of the
character base being psycho killers and hermits ... but if a lot
are then there is very little social activity.
THus, while being a soloist isn't exactly as anti-social as a PK,
it definately is *still* anti-social and should be frowned upon.
LD
Richard Cortese
Magic is currently a little out of hand.
Spent more time killing liches & *I KNOW* the guy I was with only has 80
magery. I have seen his skill list. He dropped a lich with a single
chain lightning.
Then he cast meteor storm & dropped another with one shot.
Both chain & meteor are doing about twice as much damage as flame strike
almost 1/2 the time you cast them. Seems like chain is a little more
consistant with high damage, but that meteor really supprised me.
Jeff Gentry
: While doing this, I noticed that explosion would usually do about
: 40-50% Damage and ebolt would do about 25-35% damage. Maybe I was
: getting weird numbers....but there it is.
I'm personally seeing the opposite.
I'm betting that its just like the olden days where they're actually
identical, but since we tend to only sit and watch things in
'streaks', and given the shoddy random number generator in UO,
we're noticing streaks where one is better than the other
consistently.
LD
Name withheld
>I have a friend that rped a murderer (real murderer) and did
>everything you say. His goal was to get on the bounty board.
This is IMO a fairly mutually exclusive thing. One is a powergaming goal and
the other is an RP goal.
> For
>weeks he would talk then attempt to kill. He would get a few
>sentences out and after a week or so went red. After that he couldn't
>even speak anymore because they ran, so he started roleplaying with
>the ghost afterward.
In other words when it came to a choice between RP and powergaming goals, he
took the powergaming one.
>He would res and gate. Know what? He quit
>because no one would bounty him significantly because he was nice to
>them. He had around 50 kills when he quit. Ironic isn't it?
I hear of this thing of people 'generously' ressing and gateing. I myself have
alwyas seen this as fairly self-serving. I think they do it so they can say
'but I was so nice' when the other person says they were an asshole. I'm also
assuming he kept the gear. I myself wouldnt assume that they all found him so
nice. I only ever do 1gp when I'm killed because I know where the gold will
probably end up.
Otara, Napa
Name withheld
>THus, while being a soloist isn't exactly as anti-social as a PK,
>it definately is *still* anti-social and should be frowned upon.
>
>LD
Why? There will always be plenty of people who _dont_ want to be anti-social -
let those who do play how they want is my perspective - they often become more
social over time in any case. No need to force or rush things - if you do,
Crips vs Bloods becomes the dominant social activity, as it has IMO.
Practicality has to be taken into account here a little too I think. Not
everyone has the time to be on when others are on. Gawd knows how often I've
lost half my available playing time waiting for all the other people to finally
get organised to go to a dungeon or whatever. Much as I'd love to have 4 hours
in a row to play, I usually dont.
Otara, Napa
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:35:59 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>
>>I'll go a step further and ask a question or two.
>>
>>If a pk takes your solo adventurer down one on one, is it fair?
>Depends. Did it take more than 10 seconds? If not, then no...it
>wasn't.
If the players is not a newbie, in my opinion... Fair game.
>>If a pk takes down your whole party by himself, is it fair?
>If a single PK can take out a group of prepared and skilled
>adventurers, I would say he's cheating...except that it is entirely
>possible he wasn't.
>
>PvP is an entirely different game than PvM and the characters I
>thought were great before now that I PvP more often I realise pretty
>much sucked.
I know of atleast 3 players that could kill a party of 3-4 by
themselves. PvP in outnumbered situations requires a lot of skill.
And yes, I might say they were cheating to. But then again, I don't
suck =-]
>Is it fair? No...life isn't fair. Games SHOULD be. Or perhaps you
>ENJOY playing russia in a Game of Axis and Allies?
Been a long time since I played that game. UO allows us to build up
our characters. Everything can be fair and unfair at any given point
and time.
Jaquar
wrote:
Has anyone mentioned that a little magic reflect would make the nay
sayers feel a lot better?
Thales (Ifurita)
wrote:
>Practicality has to be taken into account here a little too I think. Not
>everyone has the time to be on when others are on. Gawd knows how often I've
>lost half my available playing time waiting for all the other people to finally
>get organised to go to a dungeon or whatever. Much as I'd love to have 4 hours
>in a row to play, I usually dont.
>
>Otara, Napa
>
The group I started playing UO with decided that we would go on a trip
to Buc's Den. We'd heard there were Dread Lords there, and we wanted
to use our superior numbers to kill them.
None of us could gate.
It took two hours for everyone to walk to Trinsic, get their gear then
get on the boat that would take us to Buc's Den.
It took an hour to GET to Buc's Den, because the person driving the
boat was a moron and he wouldn't let anyone else do it.
We finally get there, find 1 Dark Lord and kill him. He ICQ'd a group
of friends who came and Ressed him and then summoned a Daemon and a
fire elemental and between the three of them (all GM or close mages)
and their pets they hunted down and killed about 20 of us.
I escaped but the server crashed. When it came back up, we were all
still alive in BD. Most of the guys were up for waiting for the bad
guys to come back so they could have a rematch. I said no way, you
guys are idiots, stole the guys boat and left more than half of them
on the island.
This episode took nearly 7 hours. 7 hours of play, and I accomplished
absolutely nothing, was frustrated and pissed. I swore I'd never do
the Guild thing again.
After that, I spent over a YEAR not playing with more than one other
person -- my partner Manwe Elduath. Most nights, I wouldn't spend
more than an hour playing. Hop in, recall to a dungeon. Kill a few
things. Recall home. No Macroing. No sparring with a partner. No
trapping monsters in a house so I could macro up my Noto and Archery
skills. No "scroll farming". No duping. No UOAssist. No "scamming"
people. No stealing.
Now, you tell me I spent a year playing the game "wrong"...I don't
think so. I played the game the way I wanted to. Now, of course, you
will counter with the argument that PKs are just playing the way they
want to, as well...the difference is that, while I rarely added
anything to the "social experience of UO" (not true, but for the sake
of this argument I'll concede the point) I also did not detract from
anyone else's play -- except for when I'd escape from those who wanted
to kill me for being a "lone adventurer" and "an easy kill".
Bah. Why am I arguing? You (Loki and Jaq) obviously think the way
you play is the ONLY way to play correctly and to hell with anyone
else. I think you are wrong and that there are several different ways
to play this game and that they SHOULD be compatable.
Ugh. I give up.
Thales (Ifurita)
>Has anyone mentioned that a little magic reflect would make the nay
>sayers feel a lot better?
>
Magic Reflect helps. Not enough.
Actually, you know what I would like? A sliding scale between Magery
skill and resist. GM in Magery? Great, you have a resist of Zero.
Make it so a 100 resist means that no magic effects you (well,
summoned creatures could beat on you, but that's about it). Then,
HALVE damage in PvP again. Reduce monster damage some too and then
cut the effectiveness of healing abilities (potions/ spells/ Heal) by
1/2. This, coupled with the reduction in PvP thievery would be a very
nice thing.
Not that it'll ever happen.
Jeff Gentry
: Magic is currently a little out of hand.
Okay, I finally got a chance to go out and play tonight. Here's what
I found. The whole para/exp/ebolt combo is a joke. Its trivial to
get a GH spell off in between the ebolt and the para, which nearly
makes up for almost all the damage (45-50 healed vs. about 60 taken
w/o resisting). I finally died tonight from a combo of a para/exp/EB
comboer and someone beating me down with a katana. The katana guy
was doing way more damage to me than the spellcaster (actually he
knocked all my stamina out so i couldn't move).
: Spent more time killing liches & *I KNOW* the guy I was with only has 80
: magery. I have seen his skill list. He dropped a lich with a single
: chain lightning.
I cast 20 chains on myself. resisted 12 and the other 8 did less than
30 each.
: almost 1/2 the time you cast them. Seems like chain is a little more
: consistant with high damage, but that meteor really supprised me.
Muyst only be PvM. Its the same ole stuff in PvP.
LD
Jaquar
wrote:
>no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>>I have a friend that rped a murderer (real murderer) and did
>>everything you say. His goal was to get on the bounty board.
>
>This is IMO a fairly mutually exclusive thing. One is a powergaming goal and
>the other is an RP goal.
>
>> For
>>weeks he would talk then attempt to kill. He would get a few
>>sentences out and after a week or so went red. After that he couldn't
>>even speak anymore because they ran, so he started roleplaying with
>>the ghost afterward.
>
>In other words when it came to a choice between RP and powergaming goals, he
>took the powergaming one.
That is not powergaming. Pull your head out of your arse and reread
that. Guy wanted to be notorious and bountied. He also solo killed
most of the time.
>>He would res and gate. Know what? He quit
>>because no one would bounty him significantly because he was nice to
>>them. He had around 50 kills when he quit. Ironic isn't it?
>
>I hear of this thing of people 'generously' ressing and gateing. I myself have
>alwyas seen this as fairly self-serving. I think they do it so they can say
>'but I was so nice' when the other person says they were an asshole. I'm also
>assuming he kept the gear. I myself wouldnt assume that they all found him so
>nice. I only ever do 1gp when I'm killed because I know where the gold will
>probably end up.
Uh no. I didn't say anything about ressing or gating. I said nice to
them. This means explain to the ghost or newly res'd guy why he plays
the role he does and giving them back ground. It also means not
yelling "I roked ur azz" but instead telling them they fought
honorably.
Jaquar
(Thales (Ifurita)) wrote:
>Bah. Why am I arguing? You (Loki and Jaq) obviously think the way
>you play is the ONLY way to play correctly and to hell with anyone
>else. I think you are wrong and that there are several different ways
>to play this game and that they SHOULD be compatable.
>
>Ugh. I give up.
*rolls up sleeves* Thales, don't be an asshole, go back and read my
posts. I believe I said we would have to agree to disagree this does
not mean my way is the "ONLY" way to play. Sheesh, chill out.
Loki and I are not pro PK we are pro pvp to an extent. Heck, I'd be
willing to wager that between Loki and I we have killed a comparable
amount of pks to what SBR has done since it started. (or atleast
ballpark)
Dundee
>Sounds good but why stop there. Let's give mages top hats and bunny
>rabbits to pull out of them. PvP? Nah, we'll just give them rocks
>to throw.
Thrown weapons would be cool.
Dundee * Lake Superior * SkeptAck AT antisocial DOT com
uo stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
The Town of Skara Brae on LS: http:/members.xoom.com/skara/
Jaquar
Sounds good but why stop there. Let's give mages top hats and bunny
rabbits to pull out of them. PvP? Nah, we'll just give them rocks
to throw.
jx...@po.cwru.edu
> >rabbits to pull out of them. PvP? Nah, we'll just give them rocks
> >to throw.
>
Darts!
-Smedley, Summoner of Daemons
Name withheld
>>In other words when it came to a choice between RP and powergaming goals, he
>>took the powergaming one.
>
>That is not powergaming. Pull your head out of your arse and reread
>that. Guy wanted to be notorious and bountied. He also solo killed
>most of the time.
That is IMO could be either a powergaming goal or a roleplaying one, depending
on the journey he took to reach that goal. My reading of what you said is that
he took the powergaming one - getting the kills to get on the board took
precedence over playing the role. Abusing me wont change my opinion.
>Uh no. I didn't say anything about ressing or gating. I said nice to
>them. This means explain to the ghost or newly res'd guy why he plays
>the role he does and giving them back ground. It also means not
>yelling "I roked ur azz" but instead telling them they fought
>honorably.
Actually you did - you said "He would res and gate". Even with your further
explanation, I still have my doubts.
Otara, Napa
Jaquar
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:45:24 GMT, no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>
>>Sounds good but why stop there. Let's give mages top hats and bunny
>>rabbits to pull out of them. PvP? Nah, we'll just give them rocks
>>to throw.
>
>Thrown weapons would be cool.
>
>Dundee * Lake Superior * SkeptAck AT antisocial DOT com
>uo stuff: http://dundee.uong.com
>The Town of Skara Brae on LS: http:/members.xoom.com/skara/
The animation can't be to tough. Just add frames to the bow.
Jaquar
wrote:
>no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>>>In other words when it came to a choice between RP and powergaming goals, he
>>>took the powergaming one.
>>
>>That is not powergaming. Pull your head out of your arse and reread
>>that. Guy wanted to be notorious and bountied. He also solo killed
>>most of the time.
>
>That is IMO could be either a powergaming goal or a roleplaying one, depending
>on the journey he took to reach that goal. My reading of what you said is that
>he took the powergaming one - getting the kills to get on the board took
>precedence over playing the role. Abusing me wont change my opinion.
I didn't attempt to flame you, you'll know it when I do =-] Trust me,
this guy isn't a powergamer.
>
>>Uh no. I didn't say anything about ressing or gating. I said nice to
>>them. This means explain to the ghost or newly res'd guy why he plays
>>the role he does and giving them back ground. It also means not
>>yelling "I roked ur azz" but instead telling them they fought
>>honorably.
>
>Actually you did - you said "He would res and gate". Even with your further
>explanation, I still have my doubts.
I must have said both then. *shrugs* You can doubt all you want
because you don't actually know.
Richard Cortese
>
> Richard Cortese (rico...@netmagic.net) wrote:
> : Magic is currently a little out of hand.
>
> Okay, I finally got a chance to go out and play tonight. Here's what
> I found. The whole para/exp/ebolt combo is a joke. Its trivial to
> get a GH spell off in between the ebolt and the para, which nearly
> makes up for almost all the damage (45-50 healed vs. about 60 taken
If you recall, my original complaint was about PinkLady casting the
ebolt faster then I could cast GH. I think you are still missing the
target here.
> w/o resisting). I finally died tonight from a combo of a para/exp/EB
> comboer and someone beating me down with a katana. The katana guy
> was doing way more damage to me than the spellcaster (actually he
> knocked all my stamina out so i couldn't move).
>
> : Spent more time killing liches & *I KNOW* the guy I was with only has 80
> : magery. I have seen his skill list. He dropped a lich with a single
> : chain lightning.
>
> I cast 20 chains on myself. resisted 12 and the other 8 did less than
> 30 each.
>
> : almost 1/2 the time you cast them. Seems like chain is a little more
> : consistant with high damage, but that meteor really supprised me.
>
> Muyst only be PvM. Its the same ole stuff in PvP.
>
> LD
Nope, it has already been fixed on TC. I stand on everything I have
said.
OSI rewrote magic, quite a bit. Their current patch level on TC for
example has problems like Gate Travel scrolls are not used up.
I did the lich thing last night on TC and *EVERYTHING* was back to
normal. Took 2-6 chain lightnings to kill a lich. I only killed one out
of a dozen or so with 2 chains, all the other took much more. I didn't
do an average, but I would guess somewhere around 4-5.
Decided to check out my Baja character. Sure enough, a single ebolt
dropped a gorilla. Went to a jungle and consistantly dropped apes with
1-2 ebolts. Looking at the gorrila stats on Stratics right now, 53 to 95
hit points.
This taken together => OSI major screwed up, OSI didn't tell us, OSI has
fixed the code on TC and is probably updating the main servers as we
have this conversation if it hasn't been fixed alread.
Thales (Ifurita)
>*rolls up sleeves* Thales, don't be an asshole, go back and read my
>posts. I believe I said we would have to agree to disagree this does
>not mean my way is the "ONLY" way to play. Sheesh, chill out.
>
>Loki and I are not pro PK we are pro pvp to an extent. Heck, I'd be
>willing to wager that between Loki and I we have killed a comparable
>amount of pks to what SBR has done since it started. (or atleast
>ballpark)
>
Sorry for the attitude. :) Also, I completely respect both you and
Loki...despite our disagreeing on this. My arguments weren't really
meant to be Anti-PK...it just sort of turned into that. Mainly, I am
concerned about game balance and the ability for _everyone_ to have
fun in it...and that is an impossible task.
Name withheld
>I didn't attempt to flame you, you'll know it when I do =-] Trust me,
>this guy isn't a powergamer.
Telling me you can be even more abusive, does not mean you werent abusive. I'm
sorry but my trust in these areas is pretty limited.
>I must have said both then. *shrugs* You can doubt all you want
>because you don't actually know.
Thank you for apologising. I will.
Otara, Napa
Jeff Gentry
: If you recall, my original complaint was about PinkLady casting the
: ebolt faster then I could cast GH. I think you are still missing the
: target here.
Your lag isn't something that should be considered in game balance
decisions, IMO :) If I'm doing the lag 2 step one evening (common
these days), I don't scream and yell that hte game is inbalanced because
everyone is popping off spells faster than I am.
: Nope, it has already been fixed on TC. I stand on everything I have
: said.
Then explain why everyone I cast totally sucks?
: Decided to check out my Baja character. Sure enough, a single ebolt
: dropped a gorilla. Went to a jungle and consistantly dropped apes with
: 1-2 ebolts. Looking at the gorrila stats on Stratics right now, 53 to 95
: hit points.
I said elsewhere that I believe PVM spell damages are higher than in
PVP. To the tune of double I believe. I *have* been doing more
ebolt damage on average lately, but not *that* much.
Trust me, after reading those posts I spent all night testing damages
on myself and *other characters* - not freakin gorillas or liches.
I could care less what spells do to monsters and animals :)
LD
Jaquar
=-] It's okay, we both can get excitable. I just don't want any
misunderstandings.
Jaquar
wrote:
>no...@nope.com (Jaquar) wrote:
>>I didn't attempt to flame you, you'll know it when I do =-] Trust me,
>>this guy isn't a powergamer.
>
>Telling me you can be even more abusive, does not mean you werent abusive. I'm
>sorry but my trust in these areas is pretty limited.
I gotta give you credit, that's a nicely trapped statement.
Name withheld
Otara, Napa
Richard Cortese
>
> Richard Cortese (rico...@netmagic.net) wrote:
> : If you recall, my original complaint was about PinkLady casting the
> : ebolt faster then I could cast GH. I think you are still missing the
> : target here.
>
> Your lag isn't something that should be considered in game balance
> decisions, IMO :) If I'm doing the lag 2 step one evening (common
> these days), I don't scream and yell that hte game is inbalanced because
> everyone is popping off spells faster than I am.
Your ego is just a little to much sometimes. You set yourself up as the
sole authority on lag for a shard you don't play & for an events you
weren't even there to witness.
bizbee just posted he got took down by two 40+ hitpoint page 6 spells.
Now who do you think I feel is more informed about what is going on, you
or bizbee?
I think it was Thales that posted in the DSS FuQ battle, he was
consistantly getting kills from explosion, ebolt, ebolt, to the point
where he became a murderer. This should not be a consistant killer
unless something is wrong. I assume most of those guys had pretty decent
resist.
You have been spending too much time in the newsgroup, too little time
reading what people are posting, and too little in the game. Actually,
considering what has been going on lately, that was probably a good
choice.
>
> : Nope, it has already been fixed on TC. I stand on everything I have
> : said.
>
> Then explain why everyone I cast totally sucks?
>
What we really need here for OSI to explain it. I think someone goofed
adding something like evaluate intelligence or meditation or *something*
to the damage modifiers w/o telling anyone.
Queso is even talking about "This pure mage thing is great" & killing
earth elementals using spells other then blade spirits, this is
critically different from what I remember ever doing. Sure I have cast
on earth elementals for magery practice & sparred with them for skills &
stats, but killing one with spells?
Wait until they patch the server.
> : Decided to check out my Baja character. Sure enough, a single ebolt
> : dropped a gorilla. Went to a jungle and consistantly dropped apes with
> : 1-2 ebolts. Looking at the gorrila stats on Stratics right now, 53 to 95
> : hit points.
>
> I said elsewhere that I believe PVM spell damages are higher than in
> PVP. To the tune of double I believe. I *have* been doing more
> ebolt damage on average lately, but not *that* much.
See bizbee, see Thales.
>
> Trust me, after reading those posts I spent all night testing damages
> on myself and *other characters* - not freakin gorillas or liches.
> I could care less what spells do to monsters and animals :)
Same guy that killed a lich with a single meteor spell got killed by an
explosion/ebolt from a lich, 85 hit points. But like I said, TC seems
back to normal damage. Had a chr absorb a ton of spells there today &
most were resisted even at 50% resist on that particular chr.
I don't want to check out Pacific again, once was enough. I may look at
Baja again, but the regular shards just kind of bore me right now.
>
> LD
See bizbee, see Thales.
Richard Cortese
> : the way it works now.
>
> No I'm not ...
>
> : that matter was as soon as you were sucessfully targetted, you got the
> : "BuTtMuNcH is attacking you!" message. You then had 4-5 secs to run off
> : the screen so you wouldn't be hit by the paralyze as the attacker went
>
> This is how it used to work to create the *exact* same effect:
> 1) BuTtMunCH is attacking you
> 2) You run to get away/ButTmunch casts Corp Por
> 3) ButTMunCh hits last target
> 4) You get hit with both spell damages at once - healing does nothing.
You are still not reading other peoples' posts, mine included.
The way it used to work, if I am down maybe 10 hit points & get the
"attacking" message, I heal up to full points and get ready to fight. I
haven't recalled against 2 or less PKs in the last 6 months w/o a fight.
If I have my bow equiped, it goes off 2 seconds after the "attacking"
message & disrupts the corp por. Now it just gets in my way.
As someone else pointed out, as soon as you see that "corp por", you ask
yourself, "Is that for me or the monster?". Before you knew, now you get
hit as you find out.
By the time they get ready to hit last target, I am so far away they
don't see my health bar anymore.
>
> Thus my statement that if you died from the combo spell now
> you will die from it then. Ack, my tenses are reversed :P
I know what you mean, but like I said, I had a admittedly less then
optimum chr killed with two spells, but bizbee who I assume pretty much
knows what he is doing had the same thing happen. Still, this wasn't a
throw away chr, 74 hit points.
>
> : If you like to anti as I used to, you could just stand there & drink a
> : GH as the damage was registered, then start fighting.
>
> No - both damages always hit at the same time. Healing did nothing.
> I believe this is the root of the rumours of cheats that allowed
> mega damage ebolts.
This could have been a mistake, but at exactly the time I see the first
peek of red in my health bar, I drink the GH & it never fails to kick in
before the 2nd spell hits. This brings me back up to ~10-30 hitpoints
even after the ebolt hits. From there, it is pretty standard to survive,
cast GH, maybe toss a magic reflect in there.
Magic reflect with some idiot that is using UOA or UOE last target is
my favorite spell. Apparently they have spells macroed such that they
can't abort them.
>
> : Disaster! No small part of the previous method is you would auto defend.
> : Most of the time the PKs never got that 2nd spell off on my chrs w/o
> : being interupted by my bow.
>
> As I said - if you die now you died then. Just no one used that combo
> back then. However - I will grant you that you're down about 3 seconds
> of reaction time if you aren't going ot be killed by those 2 spells.
I have always used that combo, well starting about a month after Baja
came up. The Patryns have always used that combo also back when they
were a force in the game.
Rumor was that ebolt would take into account armor while explosion
ignores armor. No doubt that was a false rumor, but that was the rumor
everyone operated under.
>
> : No! It now has delayed "You are being attacked!". It was changed.
>
> Yes. But I'm saying that "its not that bad" ... people that died from
> *just* those 2 spells die from *just* those 2 spells now. People who
> didn't & don't lose about 3 seconds of reaction time - so yes,
> it *has* increased in dangerousness - just it didn't become the
> secret "instakill combo" that everyone is saying.
Magic has been redone. All the stuff with blade spirits killing people &
busting up funiture, one hit spells on liches & apes: It isn't the same.
>
> : Spells seem to be more lethal. After posting I thought this was the
>
> I would agree with this. I think damage has increased and resisting
> ability decreased. The first night after the aptch (I haven't played
> much since hten due to RL issues) I know that one ebolt from me
> brought *at least* 5 people to half helath ()and these are powergamed
> PVP characters - and just the ones that I know were just my
> ebolt hitting them) ...
What I really wish is OSI would just make a public statement on it like:
"We have adjusted spell damage & like the way it works"
or
"We think spell damage is too high & will look into it"
But sheesh! Like with the mass confusion that seems to go on there, like
anyone can really tell WTF someone else is up to.
>
> given that they have to have at least 80-90 health .... that's
> rough. I mean, ebolts always did 40, 50, even 60 in a few cases -
> but their average was 333 or so for a GM mage (err 33). Now,
> i dunno
>
> LD
What is going to happen IMO. OSI will never tell us something has
changed unless they feel like it. They will always leave us debating
"Did it change?" "I don't think so!" "Well, I think it has changed!".
They don't necessarily want to see it settled, they like spin.
Then again, blade spirits becoming "Murderer Flour Sacks" that wouldn't
attack anything was greeted with ~"We have not changed the code for
blade spirits". I don't think there is intentional misstatements, just
the free for all OSI seems to be. It really could be there is only one
programmer at OSI who knows & he hasn't told anyone yet.
Thales (Ifurita)
>No - both damages always hit at the same time. Healing did nothing.
>I believe this is the root of the rumours of cheats that allowed
>mega damage ebolts.
>
Maybe...but maybe not.
I killed a Water elemental with one ebolt last night. Twice. Never
happened before. I suspect some oddities in UO at the moment...
Thales (Ifurita)
>Thales (Ifurita) (fgrubb@_nospam_mindspring.com) wrote:
>Its not all about your strength, there are
>other things that count as well ...
>
>LD
So far as I can tell it breaks down something like this:
1) Connection Speed
2) Preparedness
3) Resist Spells
4) Strength
And as for killing people 10-1...back in the days before half damage
to Players and Spell delay, when a good strength was 65 and the Insta
Death Magic Arrow (tm)...no, I'm not surprised that you could do it.
I just think it's rediculous that you could.
Jeff Gentry
: So far as I can tell it breaks down something like this:
: 1) Connection Speed
: 2) Preparedness
: 3) Resist Spells
: 4) Strength
Connection speed & preparedness are far and away the most important.
Someone who "knows what to do" can do *way* more than someone who
doesn't with the other 3.
: And as for killing people 10-1...back in the days before half damage
: to Players and Spell delay, when a good strength was 65 and the Insta
: Death Magic Arrow (tm)...no, I'm not surprised that you could do it.
Hey. Not my fault I was a GM mage in a world of journeymen :)
But, my strength was naught but about 50, this wasn't instadeath
magic arrow (parabolt days - although i never did the para first,
waste of time, i tended to 1 shot most people with LB anyhow).
Do I think that's fair? No. But at the same time I think its just
as outrageous that someone who should by all rights be dead is
allowed to get away because combat was slowed down *too* much.
I will say this, for people who liked PvP, it was *damned*
exciting back then, albeit terribly unbalanced. I'm not exactly
high on the twitchy reflexes scale so that made life a bit
difficult. Hard to compete against quake players :)
LD
ATOC
>
>> : They BOTH cast PLyze offscreen and both hit you with it. Your reflect
>> : takes one for the second it takes him to magic trap himself out of it,
>> : which might give you a chance to run...but if you are on only an
>> : average connection with lag the way it is, that is maybe a 50/50
>> : proposition. If you are a pure warrior with no magic, then reduce
>> : that chance to near zero.
>>
>> So you're saying that 2 high circle mages who get the jump on a
>> lone warrior with little means of healing himself, who have better
>> connections than said lone warrior *shouldn't* wipe the floor with
>> him? Come on!
>
In any case, Magic Trap is a bug which should be erased. Though it seems more
likely to me that both would have magic reflect on as well- wouldn't the spell
bounce back again?
>> : Most of the people I've engaged in PvP against have FAR better
>> : connections than I do. While fighting Paul Atreides, I ran on my
>>
>> To be fair, Paul is one of the fastest people out there - if you take
>> fast walk out of the equation. Before Fastwalk became something
>> that more than 3 people in all of UO used, Paul and his other
>> char were *freakin fast*. At the time I had a great connection
>> combined with my great machine, and I *usually* couldn't keep up
>> with him, and I was the only one in my group of friends who ever
>> had a chance. That's kind of a bad example to use because he is
>> definatley *not* the norm for a pk's connection.
>>
>> In fact, I'll counter your anecodtal evidence by citing Account Blocked,
>> who plays with 200-300 ms pings ....
>
I would like to note that I and other portuguese friends, until a short time ago
(european servers), felt ourselves to be damn lucky when we were pinging between
400 and 500 and had only occasional "breaks" (timed out pings). In some cases,
particularly with 4-6 people rushing onscreen at once, the sudden lag made the
game "lurch" so that things would be over before you could make your char react.
Now, with 180-230ms, I feel the world just glides, and in the euro-servers there
are not so many of those guys with an abnormally good conn. I started playing in
Baja in March of last year and even though my char was not a pvper he could
certainly survive a pk attack- when they had a roughly equivalent conn. Simply
getting run over by someone who has a much better conn is very irritating-
remember also that many of those "great" pks won by using one of those nice
programs which you just knew was what allowed them to switch from weapons to
spell and quaff potions so fast while running, so one only had to keep running
and hope to lose them off among the trees.
>> : I've always thought combat in UO is too fast and too imbalanced --
>> : nothing I've seen in the last 6 months has changed that opinion. All
>> : the different methods of killing each other are just balanced against
>> : one another now.
>>
>> I think that its "too fast" but - at the same time the slowing down of
>> combat in UO has just made it harder and harder to be a "tough fighter" -
>> that is, with every passing "slowing down", it flattens the skill
>> bell curve a bit, such that more and more people are simply "average".
>>
>
This helps even it out for those people who have worse conns :)
>>
>> Yes, things are more "balanced" but it becomes nearly impossible to have
>> ubermen out there ... which is something that I think *should* exist.
>> Then again, no one likes it when *they* aren't the uberman ...
>
Yep, particularly when the Uberman is the Uberman because he's got a better
computer, conn or UOxxx. But hell- I no longer feel those problems, with a
perfectly acceptable conn and a well set-up char. As for those chars who can wade
through a sea of enemies- there's a few out there very fearsome indeed, but it is
also much better when even the best have trouble finishing off a relatively weak
opponent when he won't cooperate and stay still to get finished off. Keeps things
balanced.
Anyway, the great advantage of pks was not that they were ubermen- but that they
were aggressive, attacked by surprise, fell upon a disorganized mob some of which
turned to them and most of which ran off, and have the organization to wink the
opposition out one by one by combining strengths.
That's where you'll find your ubermen- as components of a team who can easily
take on 3 times as many players and win.