Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories

99% lower reagent cost cap please

2»

Comments

  • Dot_WarnerDot_Warner Posts: 234
    You and I are basically in the same boat here. I wouldn't want to see the system changed just to change it, but if it was worked into an expansion of gardening (or some other resource generating skill) then I could get behind it. Especially if it reworked all of the reagent process, from growth to harvest/refinement, to use.

    Mining, lumberjacking, and fishing are all already mass resource production skills. If gardening (or whatever) got built out as a resource harvesting skill at that scale, I'm sure people would play gardener as well. Hey, you'd have a built in market if you reworked LRC! However, I also remember the days of recalling from shop to shop looking for regs. Still have a couple Mages Shops rune books actually. What a pain. No desire to return to that. You'd need some way for players to harvest and sell in huge quantity (like mining ingot quantities) and for NPC's to carry substantial quantities. None of the "this shop only stocks 10 of those" nonsense.
    I just don't see the devs adding a new skill at this point, without it being part of a larger expansion effort. We'll be lucky to see the current plant system improved any past the addition of sugarcane and flax producing seeds. I'd love to see a rework of the truly abhorrent, click-happy plant gump! (Unfortunately, it was revealed that, under the hood, the plant system is a nightmare.) 

    I'd honestly rather see them add in growable plants for the more annoying-to-get resources (tribal berries, river moss, blue corn, lava berries, tomatoes, etc.) before adding in reagents that would only really be needed if they beat LRC with a nerf bat. Even then, only five of the current seventeen reagents would even be logically growable (lore-wise, the rest are monster or environment-derived).
    By binary I just meant that with LRC you either use all your reagents, or none. You don't just use some. There is another way to build it where you could just use some, but it'd be a pretty big rework.

    I guess I should have said "potential" reagent resource harvesters. Those harvesters who would show up if you built a whole new skill for them to play with. I don't know of anyone who harvests reagents from the environment at this point (maybe that one person on Stratics who says they still pick them up off the ground.)I would love to see LRC reworked. But I'd like to see it done with the whole reagent system in mind. Gathering of the resource, crafting with the resource, use of the resource, and how a player would store it or access it at each stage.Actually I'd like to see the dev team do that with...well the entire game. :)
    While I agree that there is potential, I just don't see much dev time being invested in luring speculative resource harvesters, especially if it required reworking or scrapping already functional systems. I mean how many people really want to "work" to earn what is likely to be a meager income in UO? (or, who wants to come home from work just to "work a farm" in UO?)

    Honestly, I'd like to see UO be streamlined - not require more clicks, more tedium or more spreadsheets. 
  • Arroth_ThaielArroth_Thaiel Posts: 1,073
    edited May 2018
    I just don't see the devs adding a new skill at this point, without it being part of a larger expansion effort. We'll be lucky to see the current plant system improved any past the addition of sugarcane and flax producing seeds. I'd love to see a rework of the truly abhorrent, click-happy plant gump! (Unfortunately, it was revealed that, under the hood, the plant system is a nightmare.) 

    I'd honestly rather see them add in growable plants for the more annoying-to-get resources (tribal berries, river moss, blue corn, lava berries, tomatoes, etc.) before adding in reagents that would only really be needed if they beat LRC with a nerf bat. Even then, only five of the current seventeen reagents would even be logically growable (lore-wise, the rest are monster or environment-derived).

    While I agree that there is potential, I just don't see much dev time being invested in luring speculative resource harvesters, especially if it required reworking or scrapping already functional systems. I mean how many people really want to "work" to earn what is likely to be a meager income in UO? (or, who wants to come home from work just to "work a farm" in UO?)

    Honestly, I'd like to see UO be streamlined - not require more clicks, more tedium or more spreadsheets. 

    I am totally with you on the unlikely to happen theme. And on click reduction.

    Do you remember many years ago there was a meet up of some kind in Austin? I remember after that meeting a bunch of the fan sites were all excited. UOPowergamers is what I remember. There had been a lot of talk at that meeting about a new system that would work plants, alchemy, and tailoring together to produce dyes. Seemed like it was going to be really cool.

    About a year went by and we got a leather dye tub. HAHAHAHAHA. *Sad face*

    Shortly thereafter we got a whole bunch of exaggerated monsters for Lord Blackthorn's Revenge. (I think I have the timing about correct. It was either 3rd Dawn or LBR.)

    Anyway, the interwoven world like system for dyes that had everyone all excited we never got, but man did we get crazy looking monsters. (I guess the modern plant dye system does some of that, but it took about, what, 10 years to get it?)

    Seems like UO has always been this way. The big systems that players think would tie the game together and build out the "world of Sosaria" never get done. Whatever dev team is running the show goes in some other direction that no-one is expecting.

     

    -Arroth
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    I’m not sure why some people don’t think there will be enough reagents for everyone to just buy them from a vendor, and have created this unnecessary requirement to grow them, considering the following:

    1 I’m proposing 99% LRC cap not 0% like it used to be.

    2 there are less people now than pre aos

    3 there are more mage vendors now (with new lands)

    4 most people have probably already got 1000s of regs in their house unused.

    also, pre aos, I NEVER found the mages sold out of reagents, in fact i used to be pleased if someone had purchased regs cos then the vendors were programmed to stock double when regs were available. 

    And even if you couldn’t find any reagents anywhere for some unlikely reason, it’s 1%. PvPers will just kill someone and loot theirs.

    I cannot believe people are having a seizure over 1%.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • Garth_GreyGarth_Grey Posts: 1,459
    edited May 2018
    Teapot said:
    I remember when AoS came out and LRC suits became a thing.  The whole loading up on reagents everytime you were going out was nothing I ever missed.  Camping out the respawn at the reagents vendor.  You say you want to improve the game for new players and for those of us that have those stashed up regs in the bank who cares about LRC.  But those new players that people are donating LRC suits to make them have some sort of chance of playing the game longer than a week would probably care.  I'm trying to see why anyone would miss that?  Dying and not being able to recall out unless you could loot your regs?  Or everyone should carry insured arcane pieces again? 

    You post daily some odd stuff and it almost feels flamebaitish half the time. 

    I mean yeah, lets stop dead people talking in the game unless they have SS.  Or one of your other odd requests.
    Dying and not being able to recall out ? Are you like, the only player left that doesn't know what a charged runebook/atlas is ? And I made my reply before I read Uriah's so ...:P
    You and Several Others like this.


    Please make the Grizzled Mare a 5 slot mount, it's incredibly rare and deserves it. Some of us have been waiting a long time for this simple addition.
  • DerajDeraj Posts: 88
    edited May 2018
    LRC doesn't "neuter the game," stop being hyperbolic.
    1) My argument is not that LRC neuters the game. My argument is that 100% LRC neuters the game. It appears that your opening statement already misunderstands (and misrepresents) the entire premise. This isn't looking hopeful.
    2) I'll describe it in a different way than "neuter". A simplification or bypass of a rule in a game that reduces the challenge and complexity of that game in a detrimental way. In other words, I see the possibilities lost due to 100% LRC as detrimental to the integrity of the game. Maybe you disagree with that conclusion but given my meaning you can at least see why I would say "neuter" or "simplification" or some other similar phrases I tend to use such as "water down" and "easy button".
    It also wouldn't "open the doors to new gameplay,"
    Objectively false. At the very minimum requiring reagents would increase the demand for reagents on the market, which by itself creates new opportunities for players to make money and interact with the in-game economy and with each other. There have been other ideas floated in this thread, such as gardening/fishing for reagent production. It is extremely easy to let the imagination wander for a brief moment and come up with other ways that the cost of reagents can be used.
    nobody wants more crap in their pack to keep track of
    1) Speak for yourself please. Arguments that begin with "nobody wants..." hold no weight with me.
    2) Tracking reagents was never difficult. And it's not difficult now. UOAssist can track reagents in the title bar. EC can track them in a hot bar.
    UO needs things that are fun, not anal retentive.
    Define fun. And, "anal retentive" after accusing me of being hyperbolic? Come now.
    The argument that reagents still being a requirement and the existence of LRC being paradoxical is just a strawman.
    Who's position am I misrepresenting exactly? You're going to have to explain to me how that is a strawman. Consider the question at the end of my post. Why should spells cost reagents? Is there a reason? And if there is a reason, then how could it make sense that the rule would be negated? If the rule can be negated, why have the rule at all?
    ETA: Reading this again, it occurs to me that you suggesting that "the existence of LRC" and reagent cost being paradoxical is a strawman is itself a strawman of my argument, which is that 100% LRC, not the existence of LRC, and reagent cost is a contradiction in game mechanics. As far as I have seen nobody here appears to be arguing against the "existence of LRC" (although I haven't read every single post so I may have missed it).
    Comparing reagents to ammo isn't a 1:1 comparison. Quivers reduce weight and consumption (granted, it could be increased), plus they can also be insured/blessed. Ammo is the only consumables for archery, barring special move costs.

    That is why I am suggesting an equivalent container for mages that would hold reagents, and can be insured/blessed. Reducing their weight is also a fantastic idea. Nevertheless, hunting comes with a resource cost. If in a different timeline the devs for one reason or another allowed LAC to reach 100%, and I was here on this forum saying this shouldn't be possible, would you be going on about anal retentiveness and nobody wants to have to deal with counting arrows and the horse is out of the barn and all this other stuff that has nothing to do with the integrity of the game mechanics?

    Magic requires both mana (ammo) and reagents (obviated with LRC). Magic users ability to fight is limited in their mana pool (while archers can carry multiple quivers and healers can carry multiple insured bandage summoning talismans). Magic users also can't reach the same damage levels most melee characters enjoy on a regular basis* (only book slayers apply, no EoO bonus, poor distribution of elemental spells amongst the spell schools (i.e. magery's cold spells SUCK)).**
    I find your comparison of mana to ammo bizarre. Archers require mana to use specials. Mages require mana to cast spells. Mana regenerates for both archers and mages. Archers require finite arrows to shoot. Mages require nothing. When archers run out of arrows, they are finished. Mages cannot run out of reagents because they do not need them in the first place.

    You'll find no disagreement from me that mages suck at damage, but I don't wish to provide a response on what I think about that issue because it has the potential of completely derailing the discussion. That being said, magery's poor performance in PvM as a reason for why 100% LRC should exist is a weak reason at best, a rationalization at worst. Fix both.
    The idea of a reagent pouch was floated long ago, but the devs never seemed that interested in the idea. We got LRC instead. Again, the idea that 15 years later, people have decided to complain, is laughable.
    I've complained about 100% LRC for a long time. There is at least one thread I can find off hand on this subject from 2015 as well, so the idea that this is suddenly a new and out of the blue complaint is not accurate. When AOS was released there were several item properties that were out of whack when stacked, and the devs at that time had to institute caps where in such cases there were none. LRC didn't get a cap because it doesn't have an obvious impact on PvM or PvP combat. The effect it has however is more economical, by which I mean affecting both the market economy (the buying and selling of goods) and what might be described as the virtual ecosystem.

    Why should spells cost reagents?
  • Dot_WarnerDot_Warner Posts: 234
    edited May 2018
    Deraj said:
    1) My argument is not that LRC neuters the game. My argument is that 100% LRC neuters the game. It appears that your opening statement already misunderstands (and misrepresents) the entire premise. This isn't looking hopeful.
    2) I'll describe it in a different way than "neuter". A simplification or bypass of a rule in a game that reduces the challenge and complexity of that game in a detrimental way. In other words, I see the possibilities lost due to 100% LRC as detrimental to the integrity of the game. Maybe you disagree with that conclusion but given my meaning you can at least see why I would say "neuter" or "simplification" or some other similar phrases I tend to use such as "water down" and "easy button".
     1) 100% LRC doesn't neuter the game. I point you towards the last 15 years as evidence against this argument.

    2) The minutia of reagents (resource allocation) never made for a fun gaming experience. Layers of complexity don't add fun, they add tedium. 

    UO doesn't need any more tedium, or in this case, a return to it. If you wish to have fun keeping reagents on your mages for casting and devote the property weight to something else, by all means, go have fun. But don't force it on the rest of us.
    Deraj said:
    It also wouldn't "open the doors to new gameplay,"
    Objectively false. At the very minimum requiring reagents would increase the demand for reagents on the market, which by itself creates new opportunities for players to make money and interact with the in-game economy and with each other. There have been other ideas floated in this thread, such as gardening/fishing for reagent production. It is extremely easy to let the imagination wander for a brief moment and come up with other ways that the cost of reagents can be used.
    *eye roll* 

    Actually, it's not. You said "new gameplay," requiring reagents would be old gameplay. Two can play the semantic game. 

    Reagents are still needed for scribing, thus a "market" still exists, at least in theory. However, arguing for the potential economic impact of reagents is just plain silly. Nobody is going to make a fortune in modern UO selling, or rather reselling, reagents. They will be crushed by the scripter/RMT market before LRC changes could go live. 

    Unless said market is mitigated by aggressive dev intervention, this line of argument is moot.
    Deraj said:
    nobody wants more crap in their pack to keep track of
    1) Speak for yourself please. Arguments that begin with "nobody wants..." hold no weight with me.
    2) Tracking reagents was never difficult. And it's not difficult now. UOAssist can track reagents in the title bar. EC can track them in a hot bar.
    More semantic games. 

    Run a poll. Find out how many players want to be required to dink around with reagents again, regardless if the game or UOA did the tracking. Tracking isn't the point and you know it.
    Deraj said:
    The argument that reagents still being a requirement and the existence of LRC being paradoxical is just a strawman.
    Who's position am I misrepresenting exactly? You're going to have to explain to me how that is a strawman. Consider the question at the end of my post. Why should spells cost reagents? Is there a reason? And if there is a reason, then how could it make sense that the rule would be negated? If the rule can be negated, why have the rule at all?
    ETA: Reading this again, it occurs to me that you suggesting that "the existence of LRC" and reagent cost being paradoxical is a strawman is itself a strawman of my argument, which is that 100% LRC, not the existence of LRC, and reagent cost is a contradiction in game mechanics. As far as I have seen nobody here appears to be arguing against the "existence of LRC" (although I haven't read every single post so I may have missed it).

    You talk about game mechanics, yet LRC (100% or not) is a game mechanic introduced by the developers. 

    I'm fairly certain that leaving in the requirement for reagents when they added LRC was a far easier task than entirely reworking the way spells were cast. So the answer as to why they coexist is fairly simple: expedience (or laziness, depending on your generosity)

    This line of argument is also fairly moot when one realizes how many contradictions UO contains. If you want a lore reason for LRC, that's simple: "Magic advanced." 
    Deraj said:

    Comparing reagents to ammo isn't a 1:1 comparison. Quivers reduce weight and consumption (granted, it could be increased), plus they can also be insured/blessed. Ammo is the only consumables for archery, barring special move costs.

    That is why I am suggesting an equivalent container for mages that would hold reagents, and can be insured/blessed. Reducing their weight is also a fantastic idea. Nevertheless, hunting comes with a resource cost. If in a different timeline the devs for one reason or another allowed LAC to reach 100%, and I was here on this forum saying this shouldn't be possible, would you be going on about anal retentiveness and nobody wants to have to deal with counting arrows and the horse is out of the barn and all this other stuff that has nothing to do with the integrity of the game mechanics?

    Integrity of game mechanics? Really? LRC doesn't break game mechanics. Breaks in game mechanics are bugs, not (usually) things added by the devs.

    If you're going to bring up counting again, I'd like to point out that archers have two resources to worry about compared to a magic user's potential seventeen. But it's not about the counting, it's about the not wanting to engage in that level of detail for a game that already has too many other tidly little things to keep track of.
    Deraj said:
    I find your comparison of mana to ammo bizarre. Archers require mana to use specials. Mages require mana to cast spells. Mana regenerates for both archers and mages. Archers require finite arrows to shoot. Mages require nothing. When archers run out of arrows, they are finished. Mages cannot run out of reagents because they do not need them in the first place.

    You'll find no disagreement from me that mages suck at damage, but I don't wish to provide a response on what I think about that issue because it has the potential of completely derailing the discussion. That being said, magery's poor performance in PvM as a reason for why 100% LRC should exist is a weak reason at best, a rationalization at worst. Fix both.

    Let's ignore specials since magic users really don't have anything equivalent

    Mana is a mage's ammo, lore-wise. Reagents are more of a focus for the energies (a crutch for our minds).

    An archer can carry over a thousand arrows. (all my archers carry at least 1k arrows at all times) A mage, even with 30% weight reduction, would be hard-pressed to keep up - unless they cast only one offensive spell over and over.

    The parts about magic user damage was more a tangential rant than a reason for LRC.

    (I appear to have reached a post length where the editor becomes somewhat unstable...whee! So I'll skip ahead without quoting)

    I still don't buy the economic argument in favor of requiring reagents. I think that ship has not only sailed, but it was promptly attacked by pirates and gleefully sunk. Resource gathering is mainly the domain of the scripter at this point. (see above) I have little faith that this will improve before EA pulls the plug.

    Spells costing reagents: Ultima VI: The False Prophet started the reagent trend. Ultima VI, P2: The Serpent Isle brought the first "LRC" item, the Ring of Shal. Ultima VIII: Pagan had reagents required to make the foci for spells, but not the casting. Ultima IX: Ascension only required reagents to bind a spell into your spellbook.

    UO was heavily based on Ultima VII, P1; hence spells requiring reagents. You'd have to ask Garriott why they went that route instead of Ultima IX's method.

    But, seriously, 15 years have passed. UO has bigger fish to fry besides Mervyn's doomed crusade du jour. *points at pet autostabling not going anywhere* 
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    (I wouldn’t start crowing just yet about the pet auto stabling crusade going nowhere, i beleive there are changes in the works to address some valid issues, but that is for another thread)
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    It is actually very possible to play with only 99% LRC and never use reagents ever, let us consider that warriors have a 50% chance to miss, or a chance their bandages fail if they slip a lot, yet mages 100% never miss. It would not be the end of the game if someone’s spell failed very occasionally. People use the spell rising colossus and nether cyclone when at 120 mystic there is a chance to fail the spell. Where are all the posts about people having to carry rising collossus and nether cyclone scrolls and the great shortage of them on vendors? 

    I NEVER once looted one of these scrolls off of a mystic and I kill a lot of people, because people just don’t care enough and just cast it again when it fails. I mean overall since aos, there is casting focus been introduced which means you have less chance of failing to cast than you used to. 
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,685
    edited May 2018

    Warriors can hit non stop for no energy/stam expenditure. Mages cannot, they run out of mana.

    Mages have to stop for a certain time period to cast most spells, warriors don't.

    Mages can already fizzle some spells - yes warriors also miss hits.

    Mages spells miss from incorrect distance - warriors hits also miss from incorrect distance.

    There are no end of affects that prevent mages from casting or prevent the spells from landing. Bleed, Strangle, Poison resist, Lethal Poison, Paralyse, Shield Bash, Mana Drain, Mana Vampire, Dismount, Being pulled into mobs, Area Affect spells such as Thunderstorm, Cyclone, Pet Area Affect Abilities, Mortal - etc. etc. etc.

    In the old days, when reagents were required, most of the above abilities that have come out since, that are designed to stop mages casting, did not exist.

    I have no issues with the concept of removing LRC in itself. I have no issues with the concept of removing Casting Focus even.

    But in the current climate, you would actually be nerfing mages, for no good reason. The game has In my opinion, already gone far beyond what is required to make up for 100% LRC.

    Making Shadowguard, Doom, Peerless Bosses, Champ Spawns, most PvM events impossible for Mages to solo, whilst other classes walk through them, and making Parryless mages such dogfood in PvP - Mages already have it hard enough imo.

    At this stage, if you add 99% LRC, all you are doing, is adding more RNG into Mageplay, on top of Casting Focus. This isn't necessary surely. The whole game would have to be rebalanced, to cope with this (what seems to be very small) change.

  • Petra_FydePetra_Fyde Posts: 1,468
    Unless my memory is faulty, this whole argument is purely academic because the idea of changing lower reagent cost has already been discussed and turned down. I admit I don't remember which member of the team said it.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    Funny you mention that Petra. There was a thread about in on stratics about a decade ago, and one of the then forum admins who disagreed with it moved the thread to “spiels and rants” out of the way of the dev team to see, so the forum admin made the decision for everyone. Was it you Petra? 


    But yeah yeah let us all give up trying to correct any mistakes..
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    Cookie are you seriously saying there is something that you would not be able to do as a mage carrying regs with 99 lrc but would be able to do with 100? What is this boss?

    last time I checked in doom, there was a vendor. 

    As for there being things like thunderstorm to disrupt casting, they also introduced cleansing winds and enchanted apples. (Plus gift of renewal which requires no regs)

    I most definitely could do any content with 50% lower reagent cost, and people apparently consistently tell me how bad I am at the game.

    someone please explain to me how mystics cast collossus? Because according to this thread, mysticism should be completely unplayable. Where are the scrolls? Show me the scrolls you mystics carry
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • Petra_FydePetra_Fyde Posts: 1,468
    I don't remember every action I took, and no longer have access to the records we kept at the time. If I did move it, I had a good reason, I never moderated a thread on anything as personal as simply disagreeing with the poster.  
  • TeapotTeapot Posts: 58
    Garth_Grey said:
    Teapot said:
    I remember when AoS came out and LRC suits became a thing.  The whole loading up on reagents everytime you were going out was nothing I ever missed.  Camping out the respawn at the reagents vendor.  You say you want to improve the game for new players and for those of us that have those stashed up regs in the bank who cares about LRC.  But those new players that people are donating LRC suits to make them have some sort of chance of playing the game longer than a week would probably care.  I'm trying to see why anyone would miss that?  Dying and not being able to recall out unless you could loot your regs?  Or everyone should carry insured arcane pieces again? 

    You post daily some odd stuff and it almost feels flamebaitish half the time. 

    I mean yeah, lets stop dead people talking in the game unless they have SS.  Or one of your other odd requests.
    Dying and not being able to recall out ? Are you like, the only player left that doesn't know what a charged runebook/atlas is ? And I made my reply before I read Uriah's so ...:P
    Yeah my fault was just thinking of quick things of the top of my head.  Love you too brah.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,685
    edited May 2018

    I've not said I couldn't do it.

    I'm currently playing a 108 mystic in pvp instead of 120 (I'm crap at training skills - prefer to play), and I fizzle the whole time, I still play it.

    I've said, it would add a whole level of RNG to Mageplay we don't really need right now - it already seems bad enough for a class that's meant to play based on skill alone.

    I've also said, they have more then compensated for giving mages the benefit of LRC by adding in a trillion different new ways to stop you casting, or prevent your spells from landing. Even cleansing winds is no use if you are disturbed - which happens a lot by the way.

    This is one of those things, I just don't see the point of right now. A bit like your pet stable thing.

    And as Dot said, if 90% LRC on a 1 reg spell becomes a 60% cast chance on a 4 reg spell, that becomes quite a big game changer.

    I don't mind it, if the entire concept and all processes behind it have been well thought out, but to just throw it in there, ignoring all the games counter balances put in over 15 years, could cause serious balance issues. And I personally, am already not happy with how they treat mage classes.


    Edit - To summarise - if this were part of an entire gameplan to make the game less easymode - that is fine. But as a single action on its own... it is a bit piecemeal, and would only harm one class, leaving all the rest exactly where they stand. I get your bit where you say you'd be happy to take the hit, but what if it's only you taking the hit, and nothing else comes of it? :)

  • Maximus_NeximusMaximus_Neximus Posts: 380
    I'm not a fan of this idea. It's something that benefits those that have reagants stocked away and does nothing to stimulate the economy, help new players, or keep old players.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    It would assist new/returning players, but only by 1%, because they would only need to achieve 99% to match the old guard. It’s nothing I know, but if I suggested 40% cap, I think I know what would happen.

    If reagents were bad, they never would have introduced them or would’ve deleted them, they have only been effectively removed by an oversight on devs not getting around to putting a cap on. Let us consider if lower mana cost never had a cap and I came on the boards suggesting they capped it at 40%. I’m certain I would be trolled off the boards by the very people in this thread wishing to retain 100%.

    Its inertia that people who complain suffer from, they are so used to easy mode milk and cookies uo that this game becomes boring. I mean people actually genuinely complained about the fiendish ai bug on the roof being fixed, they genuinely believed that they would prefer to play the game where you say all kill and go and browse the web. This is what we want is it? No wonder people lose interest. No more milk and cookies please. There is no bathroom!
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • drcossackdrcossack Posts: 145
    Mervyn said:
    It would assist new/returning players, but only by 1%, because they would only need to achieve 99% to match the old guard. It’s nothing I know, but if I suggested 40% cap, I think I know what would happen.

    If reagents were bad, they never would have introduced them or would’ve deleted them, they have only been effectively removed by an oversight on devs not getting around to putting a cap on. Let us consider if lower mana cost never had a cap and I came on the boards suggesting they capped it at 40%. I’m certain I would be trolled off the boards by the very people in this thread wishing to retain 100%.

    Its inertia that people who complain suffer from, they are so used to easy mode milk and cookies uo that this game becomes boring. I mean people actually genuinely complained about the fiendish ai bug on the roof being fixed, they genuinely believed that they would prefer to play the game where you say all kill and go and browse the web. This is what we want is it? No wonder people lose interest. No more milk and cookies please. There is no bathroom!

    No it wouldn't.  It would just piss them off to no end because they fail their spells over and over because they don't have the regs required.  Years back, I had a separate suit for dueling, which focused on LMC & MR, with very little (if any) LRC on it.  I had more than one duel stop because I ran out of regs.

    There's no cap?  Wut.  The "Cap" is 100%, because anything over that is pointless.  Anything less than that can meet with several spells that don't get to cast, because you get the regs message.  There's literally no reason for it to be removed now, because NOBODY is interested in keeping track of a completely unnecessary resource...and removing it might just drive a bunch of people away from a game that's already low on subscribers/players.  If you REALLY want a UO where there's no LRC to deal with, there are any number of free shards for you to play.
  • crunchnastycrunchnasty Posts: 241
    Why even have reagents then? Seriously, its stupid that we have skills that require reagents, and tithing, and then nobody ever has to use them. explain to me how the system is working just fine.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    Nobody? I am, don’t nobody us.

    And for the 10th time, I am not proposing a cap of 0 LRC, I am proposing 99%. It’s in the title even.
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • SyncrosSyncros Posts: 116
    Just remove reagents from all casting schools of magic.  Mana/dex use is all they should need.

    99% is a waste of time to do, I know my t hunter has a 98% suit and the amount of times times I cant a spell is way too much.
  • MervynMervyn Posts: 2,208
    edited May 2018
    Why are you failing to cast at 98%? I suggest carrying reagents. 

    So much talk in this thread about cast fails, when you could just carry 50 of each reg which is the entire point of the thread...
    I tell you the truth, tis better to do 10 damage on the right target than 100 damage on the wrong target.

    Breaking in the young since 2002


  • RorschachRorschach Posts: 534Moderator
    this is going no where. email your suggestion to uo@broadsword.com
This discussion has been closed.