haha, i love how the people that defend the status quo sound so much like politicans. "uh no, we cant be sure what happens" so better just stay with the subpar solution we have right now.

ever thought what we are actually testing? we are testing function of realm abilities without considering the context. pure function. we do not check the suitability in its specific context. its like implementing sap and just checking single function without an integrated test. ye, be happy that charge works. still doesnt make it right in the uthgard context.

so, what is right in the uthgard context? for sure not nf ra + 1.69. and that is quite obvious. everything else can be discussed. but it requires a real goal. like the real classic expierence (which is not bind to a patchtarget). if the goal is to develop a server to blues very own liking, then that is ok and requires no further discussion. but it would finally be clear. otherwise: keep on the political jibberjabber.

Would help a lot if Blue would make Clear, what the Future brings on Uthgard.

Will there be ever OLD RA´s or not? Well i guess no !
Will that targeted Patch 1.69 still focused?
Whats about the "new" 1.70+ accepted Changes?

We can discuss this here over and over and still have no answer, because we as user can´t change it anyway.

We have a Player Council who seems to be very inactive (and in my opinion must be way more Member from the Three Realms in it) and a Server owner which NEVER gives a clear Statement about the Future.

I guess that is all what we want.

Lasastard wrote:Good so you are saying a proper classic server can't be done then. Won't argue with you there, if you want to apply strict rules for testing.

Unfortunately, yes, thats what im saying. Proper classic is unattainable imho. And i dont understand when you say strict rules for testing. How can you test at all? (as far as old RA's go)

Lasastard wrote:So can I get NF then? No? But it can be tested and would be more appropriate for the RAs and the overal setting that the server actually represents. Also, it is fully testable and whatnot. All seems a bit random now, doesn't it..

I will agree with you here. It is random, but I deal with the current situation though. Why? Because i dont want to play live. I don't want to play on a different custom shard. I don't have the knowledge or time to create my own custom shard.

shintari wrote: If the goal is to develop a server to blues very own liking, then that is ok and requires no further discussion. but it would finally be clear. otherwise: keep on the political jibberjabber.

I think i saw Ron say this in a post before. A simple statement would be awesome.. something like

Hi, Welcome to uthgard. We are a custom classic server that currently supports 1.69 patch level with 1.80 ra's, and whatever custom changes we feel takes the game to a state in our vision. Why do we think we should be able to do this? , ... Well, because it's our server, If you dont like it, GTFO. Have a nice day

I have stated that before Sleepwel, but I dont want to have to search to find that quote.

Hey I agree Lasa and Shintari and with most others. In a perfect world you would implement elemental dmg and ToA bonuses on the classic items and alot of imbalances on this server slightly start to dissappear. Blue has stated there would be an RvR revamp at some point that would include some nice things like ports and keeps effecting Relic Keep gaurds. This will help a little.

To answer Xacrag: Most of your questions have been answered by Blue.

Blue wrote:We will deliver 1.69 as much as possible and as we use NF RA's and RR5 there will be deviations from 1.69 per se. That will not enable the introduction of NEW features which came behind 1.69. Some features like spread heals already exist on Uthgard and its a pain to get rid of them again without p*ssing players. You just can't draw a clear line but you cannot take this as argument to make chaotic changes from any patch level where a feature sits that you want.

Every step we do in development tries to get closer to 1.69. Thats all what can be said about it. Due to the fact we use NF RA's there will be some customizations inbetween as already announced (Viper3 etc). We also take the freedom to remodel certain aspects of the RvR setup.

Blue wrote:Ori, we will always have some problems since we don't have ToA, else we have to target 1.65 with old RA's implemented!

Theres not a single patch which will be 100% appropriate. Uthgard was meant to be located right before NF introduction which is 1.69. Thats all. We could also go down to 1.65 to exclude ToA influence but thats not so much different to what we have at 1.69. Problem remains old RA's which can't be put in since several active RA's are untestable and impossible to implement properly without guessing.

Blue wrote:There will be NO 1.80+ features on Uthgard. Make no doubt about this. Some seem to not understand this.

A target patch level exactly points to the direction we will go. The only discussable range at all is inbetween 1.69-1.80. Where the weight is clearly on 1.69. NF RA's are no argument to not targetting 1.69.

This was my favorite post in regards to the last time this topic was brought up. Pythion summed it up the best.

pythion wrote:Uthgard =
1.80 RAs with some RR5s not working properly.
1.69 Skills with the exception of 1.72 stuns,heals,and buffs being uninterruptable. (1.79 warden cure disease)


I don't really see what all the noise is about. OF RAs were not balanced at all and there is no way to test or recreate them on live servers to implement them here.

With our current patch limit there aren't too many people crying to add ToA, so why would they cry for Catacombs and Darkness Rising with 1.80? There is a reason why we stand by the 1.69 patch limit with it being right before NF (1.70), but from 1.70 - 1.80 was only about a year and a half.

Instead of arguing why not just give all "classic" classes their 1.80 abilities? It's obvious what Uthgard wants to accomplish, but you shouldn't have to call all 1.69+ updates "custom".

Salisbury or Bossiney status quo is the one we should aim for without Old RA's.
The whole concept of 1.69 is just bullshit without old RA's and the Classic Servers were classic

Btw. Rone i see many more things that are from 1.80 and not from 1.69 so far. Will these be ever changed or not? Why you exclude some skills/abilities then? Should be all or nothing.

Sure he said we can discuss about it, but where is this discussion.

You really think Blue and the some GM´s which are NOT playing the same amount of us can decide whats good and whats not good.

Either NEW RA´s Custom are bulls*it aswell.

But still some guys don´t get it, Uthgard is and will never be a CLASSIC Freeshard.

i don't get the problem?

We have OF and new RA, a somehow custom solution that never existed on live... so what? By coincidence it is even the perfect daoc setting for me.

Uthgard still feels more classic than every try that mythic or EA ever delivered.

We have a by the staff aknowledged imbalance due to no ToA boni, artefacts, ML and stuff but new RA. Staff already said there will be custom measures to balance this custom setting (maybe nerf viper, just as example).

But bug fixes and completing the OF implementation (it is not finished at all!) have a higher priority. As usual you are all way to impatient. Wait some more time, and if it takes some more years... it will be some years, and everything will be better here.

And don't tell me Uthgard is unplayable the way it is today, i have a blast playing here.
The best beta i have ever played

holsten-knight wrote: As usual you are all way to impatient. Wait some more time, and if it takes some more years... it will be some years, and everything will be better here.

Hey, i pay good money to get quality on-demand service. These high paid gm's need to spend less time with the family and put their nose to the grindstone.

/sarcasm off



To Uthgard Staff:

Thanks for the time you invest and the service you provide.

"Balancing the RA's" is a no go

holsten-knight wrote:
Effected by det? gives root immunity or not? Ignores root immunity? Maybe even clears immunty? Used when no target is hit or still rdy? Used when all targets that were hit are immune or still rdy? ...

Who can still answer this with a proof? And you are correct, this is even one of the more clear and easy to implement RA... there are a lot more complicated RA's.

Trip/Grapple fall into the "crap no one was using in 1.69" category. As do the vast majority of all other RAs that we don't have good information on. Yes it granted immunity and was effected by DET, which is why no one ran it. Same thing with the Hail of Blows and other crappy damage add RAs, or the melee style RAs, they sucked, no one used them. Why does it matter if some crappy RA that no one used is just crappy on uthgard or crappy + 2 on uthgard...its crap no one runs either way.

What if mastery of water actually granted 3.3% movement speed in water, think of the balance! No one cares. Doesn't matter.


DET/Aom/SoS/STT/MOC/MoA/Aug Stats, these are very clear, the important RAs are not really in question.

Oh, my bad. So now its all about what RA's the majority uses that is important. So we dont even want Old RA's, we just want the Old RA's that are better for certain classes. Trip and Grapple were used alot by tanks on Classic DAoC. I will admit that it might not have been the top choice, but it was used quite frequently by tanks. If you were hitting a healer and he was almost dead and had stun immunity you could have a tank grapple or trip them while the other tank finished them off so they couldnt insta heal. See my post above on why Old RA's will never come. I posted Blue's EXACT words. No reason for an argument on this.

oh and old SoS is not clear at all... or please explain to me how old RA SoS worked in detail please , so i get another version to the existing 10 different i got so far

RonELuvv wrote:Oh, my bad. So now its all about what RA's the majority uses that is important. So we dont even want Old RA's, we just want the Old RA's that are better for certain classes.

Who said not to implement any Old RAs? (Actually I don't think MW should be implemented, I think MoF should be kept, and NF DET for hybrid should be discussed) Nobody....


You misunderstand, I said that the RA's you don't have perfect (or really good) information for are crappy anyway. If you poorly implement a bad RA, as long as you don't do so in a way that makes it good, it won't matter.

The Damage Add and melee style RA's are a perfect example of this. They were terrible, so what does it matter if the DA ends up being equivalent to a 4.5 DPS DA or a 4.4 DPS DA?

Either way its bad.

For Grapple/Trip, let's say it was really 1.25X 12 seconds for some reason, so instead of 15 seconds you get 12...well, both are crappy anyway, too short of duration gives immunity, too long of a timer, the impact is basically zero.

What would matter is if we didn't know what % DET was, or how SoS worked...those would impact game play significantly, the precise workings of a crappy RA that few used does not.

holsten-knight wrote:oh and old SoS is not clear at all... or please explain to me how old RA SoS worked in detail please , so i get another version to the existing 10 different i got so far

What are you talking about? SoS is one of the most straight forward active realm abilities from OF.

It grants you 200% normal movement speed for 30 seconds on a 30 minute RUT. The movement speed trumps all parts of CC that stop you from moving, but not their other parts.




The only part of implementing old RAs that would be difficult is coming up with damage values for the actives like Volcanic Pillar or Wrath of the Champion. But again, even a badly done version of this is better than a perfect version of NF (which we don't and never will have btw).

There are a few ways you could do it, you could review videos to get an impression of the damage done, you could poll players, and you could even make use of the level 2-3 of certain actives that were carried over into NF. You know TWF here uses a different dmg type than on live, we already have custom RAs, and they will always be custom, no matter what.

Apart from the fact that it would still be possible to create classic-like RvR experience without getting your knickers in a twist over some RA details, to me the more important issue is - and Holsten is one of those fellows - the stubborn sticking with the OF zones despite a clear admittance by the staff that the rest of 'classic' DAoC (i.e. realm abilities) is pretty much out of the question. Instead, they are doing a NF server now without, well, NF.

So someone is very attached to a zone for no logical reason other than 'it makes me remember the old days' - but others think the same about the realm abilities. Why is the stupid zone more relevant than another critical aspect of classic DAoC? Because if you get right down to it, there really is no *logical* reason to commit to one without the other - apart from some fuzzy feeling in your little tummy. Gameplay-wise, live-server-emulation-wise it makes no sense. This is just cherry-picking things and what is cherry-picked is no longer based on some clear vision of a game, but on irrational considerations (i.e. non-functional old zones versus improved new realm abilities).

And as for a) being patient and b) stfu'ing since the staff does this in their free time...
a) 3 years has this RvR-revamp been announced and we still have little more than the maps. Can't blame a fellow for getting a little impatient then, especially since the originally formulated road map has fallen apart. The least I would expect is a proper statement, in the news section, coming clean about the server goals and how they have changed over the course of the last 1-2 years. That would be the decent thing to do for the players that invest so much time into this server.

b) Yes, indeed, the staff is doing this in their free time, but no one is forcing them. Supposedly, they get as much joy out if building a server as we get out of playing on it. And since we are the ones actually being affected by the staff decisions, I think it is only right if we speak our minds about the development. I am not putting a gun on Blue's chest, I am simply trying - in a reasonable way I presume - to highlight some things that I (and others) have identified as problems. In particular, problems that someone not actually playing the game and with overall comparatively little playing experience, may not be particularly sensitive towards.