Enhanced Client vs Classic.

Cookie · December 13

The real injustice for me, is the inequality between Enhanced, and Classic, when they could be equal.

Enhanced Client allows Macro's/Scripts, written in .lua, which is the same language the kids use in Roblox. My son is fluent in .lua, and can write entire games in it with no help at all, you should see his speed. Adding Javascript, and Python, are additions to his ability.

Target Injured Friendly – by Khyro – Ultima Online

This is the LEGAL Heal Injured Friendly script in Enhanced Client.

Everything in this Post 1, is legal, I have not contravened anything.

Edit your Actions.lua file, and add the following to the file (can be anywhere, bottom is fine):

function Actions.InjuredFriendly()
	local lowerId = 0
	local lowerHP = -1
	for i = 1, table.getn(MobilesOnScreen.MobilesSort) do
		local mobileId = MobilesOnScreen.MobilesSort[i]
		local data = WindowData.MobileName[mobileId]
		local noto = data.Notoriety+1
		if (Actions.TargetAllowed(mobileId) and not IsPartyMember(mobileId) and noto == NameColor.Notoriety.INNOCENT) then
			local mobileData = Interface.GetMobileData(mobileId, true)
			if mobileData then
				local curHealth = mobileData.CurrentHealth
				if (curHealth < 25) then				
					if curHealth < lowerHP or lowerHP == -1 then
						lowerHP = curHealth
						lowerId = mobileId
					end
				end
			end
		end
	end
	
	if (lowerId ~= 0) then
		HandleSingleLeftClkTarget(lowerId)
	end
end

Cookie · December 13

This is the same script in the Other, in JavaScript.

I removed it, as it was not exactly the same script.
If I find the same one, I will re-add.
But it will get removed anyway of course.

Cookie · December 13

The point being, they are just equivalent, and the same.

Enhanced Client has the capability to be scripted, and botted, in the same way Classic is being. It never was, because people did not want to play that client. It is legal to edit the .lua.

The current solution of reducing lag, is only working, because 70% of players have been blocked from the game.

What will happen now, is 50% of the blocked players will move to enhanced client, and continue in the same vein - but legally?, and 50% of the blocked players will quit the game, because they have no equal option.

All the other client was, was a way to balance the clients, and I have asked the Devs for over 15 years of unbalanced play, to make the clients equal - it IS possible, we know it from lived, and played experience.

The above action is not possible in Classic Client on its own. It is possible in Enhanced Client.
I have always maintained, from Day 1 - the original CHEAT CLIENT was in fact the Enhanced Client.

Those players still in Classic, will learn to feel and understand how I felt for 15 years, competing against Enhanced Client, from Classic. The only reason any of this happened, is Classic Client players attempted to balance the clients because the Devs did not do it.

Rhel · December 13

Those two scripts are very different. One just targets a low health friendly (the EC one).

The other targets a low health friendly, checks a bunch of parameters to see what automatic action(s) are possible and then automatically takes an action based on the parameters returned. It will actually look at your target friendly, determine if they're in LOS and range first before taking any action and then automatically greater heal, cure(poison), or heal(determined by amount of remaining health). It also has a line to cure paralyze by casting clumsy on your friend, but its been commented out.

You actually don't even have to think or play the game with the second script, just push a button and this client will do it all for you. The EC script only targets an injured friendly, then the player must determine what to do next and provide actual input.

I'm actually happy you posted this, because it show how absolutely ridiculous the other clients scripting can be. Why even play a game if you just push a button that eliminates any challenge or thought process for the player?

Adding this just because:

Image: https://forum.uo.com/uploads/editor/nf/6kiwxdf4uhdh.png

Cookie · December 13

Rhel said:

Those two scripts are very different. One just targets a low health friendly (the EC one).

The other targets a low health friendly, checks a bunch of parameters to see what automatic action(s) are possible and then automatically takes an action based on the parameters returned. It will actually look at your target friendly, determine if they're in LOS and range first before taking any action and then automatically greater heal, cure(poison), or heal(determined by amount of remaining health). It also has a line to cure paralyze by casting clumsy on your friend, but its been commented out.

You actually don't even have to think or play the game with the second script, just push a button and this client will do it all for you. The EC script only targets an injured friendly, then the player must determine what to do next and provide actual input.

I had already acknowledged that, I took the wrong one - and taken it down.
And I did not want to contravene forum posting rules - which you are doing.

But they are both scripts, aren't they.

Thank you for the agreement - my son could write anything legally in .lua. We just will not play Enhanced.

The only difference is, no-one has put the effort into Enhanced scripting yet.

loop · December 13

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

Rhel · December 13

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

Those two scripts are very different. One just targets a low health friendly (the EC one).

The other targets a low health friendly, checks a bunch of parameters to see what automatic action(s) are possible and then automatically takes an action based on the parameters returned. It will actually look at your target friendly, determine if they're in LOS and range first before taking any action and then automatically greater heal, cure(poison), or heal(determined by amount of remaining health). It also has a line to cure paralyze by casting clumsy on your friend, but its been commented out.

You actually don't even have to think or play the game with the second script, just push a button and this client will do it all for you. The EC script only targets an injured friendly, then the player must determine what to do next and provide actual input.

I had already acknowledged that, I took the wrong one.

But they are both scripts, aren't they.

Thank you for the agreement - my son could write anything legally in .lua. We just will not play Enhanced.

Just being scripts is like saying salt water and water are just water, but I sure am not going to drink one to get hydrated.

One is a very simple and basic script that automates targeting.

One literally plays the game for you.

Ask your son to right a script in .lua that does the exact same as the script you posted and we can see if it works in the EC.

My guess is it probably won't work, because some of the variables and object used in the other client script are specific to the other client. This is the reason those scripts don't work in the CC, and why the other client isn't approved because its been modified with variables and objects that allow automation.

Cookie · December 13

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

I think you are about to be surprised.

It may be legal, but maybe the people with knowledge would not want to share. Thus creating all the same issues of have's and have not's we have been through. As someone said to me, it all depends on your social circle.

(It's also not one for me, I am not going to play Enhanced, I am on my way out as you know, I will leave it to others, who I know will).

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

I think you are about to be surprised.

It may be legal, but maybe the people with knowledge would not want to share. Thus creating all the same issues of have's and have not's we have been through. As someone said to me, it all depends on your social circle.

Hoping to be surprised, but the EC has been out for a very long time. I suspect that people have tried and failed.

You could make the target injured action, add it to a macro in the EC and follow it with a heal spell, or cure but you won't be having the client automagically determine the targets state and then use the appropriate spell.

Sadly, posting that script just damns the client you're trying to defend and reinforces the action taken against it.

If there was a script that could do that, I bet there are scripts that can determine an enemies health, and then cast spells based on the % left, or scripts that would just automatically determine if a player was mounted, and whether you should automagically use dismount or not just by pushing a button and in the same button push, if determined not to be mounted, use a different action.

The extent of automation in the client/script is pretty crazy. lol

Cookie · December 14

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

What I am interested in though, is how many of you guys, just don't care about the real issues.

It's all about judging, punishing, and forcing out those who tried to raise genuine concerns, and were ignored.

I started this post, by detailing very clearly, a game inbalance. And you ignore it? Brush over it?

That is not to you specifically, it is to many of those involved in the witch hunt.

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

What I am interested in though, is how many of you guys, just don't care about the real issues.

It's all about judging, punishing, and forcing out those who tried to raise genuine concerns, and were ignored.

I started this post, by detailing very clearly, a game inbalance. And you ignore it? Brush over it?

But your idea of fixing the game imbalance is to use an unapproved/hacked client that allows you to use ridiculous scripts that give extreme advantages over even EC players.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the clients could use love - yes I say clients because even the EC has its frustrations.

What no one who hasn't used these other clients will agree with you on is that using them is the solution and the way you presented your argument kind of came off as well EC can target injured friendlies, and this other client did the same, plus played the game for me! why can't I use this other client? All under the guise of fairness.

Cookie · December 14

Rhel said:

I posted 2 scripts, and you are not bothered by one, because it is simple. (But only exists in ONE client).

That is how all scripts start.

So simple scripts are ok?

You do not need to answer, it is a rhetorical question, you have already said they are.

In my opinion, that is double standards, but hey.

Cookie · December 14

Rhel said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

What I am interested in though, is how many of you guys, just don't care about the real issues.

It's all about judging, punishing, and forcing out those who tried to raise genuine concerns, and were ignored.

I started this post, by detailing very clearly, a game inbalance. And you ignore it? Brush over it?

But your idea of fixing the game imbalance is to use an unapproved/hacked client that allows you to use ridiculous scripts that give extreme advantages over even EC players.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the clients could use love - yes I say clients because even the EC has its frustrations.

What no one who hasn't used these other clients will agree with you on is that using them is the solution and the way you presented your argument kind of came off as well EC can target injured friendlies, and this other client did the same, plus played the game for me! why can't I use this other client? All under the guise of fairness.

I personally begged for the Classic Client to be upgraded, to match Enhanced, for at least 15 years.

Then I quit the game. Then I came back, because a fix was made. My opinion is, if the Devs are not going to do it, having been begged to for 15 years, it is fair game to deal with it yourself.

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

I posted 2 scripts, and you are not bothered by one, because it is simple.

That is how all scripts start.

So simple scripts are ok?

I'm not bothered by one because it is simple and per the laws of BS, legal within their realm of control. The other is only available in a hacked version of the client, and completely automates play.

The enhanced client has also been out since 2009. I imagine if the simple scripts were going to go crazy, they'd already have done so?

Pawain · December 14

If you look back a few years ago, everyone said the cheaters were using CC.

We have now learned that was not the case. But so many vocal posters here were willing to die on that hill at the time.

Why can't BS make it that an approved must be used to connect to the servers?

Cookie · December 14

Rhel said:

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

I posted 2 scripts, and you are not bothered by one, because it is simple.

That is how all scripts start.

So simple scripts are ok?

I'm not bothered by one because it is simple and per the laws of BS, legal within their realm of control. The other is only available in a hacked version of the client, and completely automates play.

The enhanced client has also been out since 2009. I imagine if the simple scripts were going to go crazy, they'd already have done so?

I have explained many times, no-one plays Enhanced Client, no-one likes it, no-one can be bothered to go to the effort.

Now, they are sort of being forced into Enhanced, it could change.

Cookie · December 14

Rhel said:

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

I posted 2 scripts, and you are not bothered by one, because it is simple.

That is how all scripts start.

So simple scripts are ok?

I'm not bothered by one because it is simple and per the laws of BS, legal within their realm of control. The other is only available in a hacked version of the client, and completely automates play.

The enhanced client has also been out since 2009. I imagine if the simple scripts were going to go crazy, they'd already have done so?

You do realise, I only posted a simple script from Enhanced?
One that is already out there?
I linked it to the UO Forums, to get across the message this is already legal.
You yourself have agreed it is legal and you are happy with it.

My intention was to match it to the identical Other script, which can still be done, to show the similarities.
I chose the wrong script, I admitted it, I know I would not be able to post it anyway.
There are 2 points here;
1. I can show the exact matching script, that can be done easily, to show how much the same they are. The point there is - there is a ton of misunderstanding about scripts, and script usage, and who is doing it.
2. I was only showing a simple script as an example...

ForeverFun · December 14

From a timeframe perspective,

I'd liken the classic client to Windows 98.

The enhanced client to Windows 7.

These systems have large internal differences, you can read about them online.

Good luck "porting" everything from Windows 7 to Windows 98. Native 64bit and large memory support? I can't imagine that happening for Windows 98. Same concept is probably true if you think about CC v. EC.

Just things like the mini map difference, where you can see all your party members and locations update in near real-time on the map, etc etc etc.

Look at all the QoL changes posted for EC. How often do we see those posted for CC? How long would it take to get the EC manifestation boss QoL change (link) into a CC mini map?

The rational move is probably to bring the graphics from CC over to EC, at the native EC resolution, as an option. Broadsword could keep CC internal until whatever internal tools they have that depend on it get moved over. Then phase out the existing CC.

loop · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Hi Cookie,

My experience with the EC has been that you can't perform certain actions outside of user input. For example, with third-party clients it's trivial to write an auto-bandage script. My attempts to do the same in EC -- using the onUpdate callback, creating just a simple loop, etc. -- weren't successful. If you're aware of how to make this work, I'd be interested. Scripting within the EC would be "legal", so I don't think there would be a concern with sharing. Any extended action within the EC would still require it be tied to some user input - like clicking a button or a macro.

In short, I don't think the EC supports the level automation that you'll be missing from third-party clients.

What I am interested in though, is how many of you guys, just don't care about the real issues.

It's all about judging, punishing, and forcing out those who tried to raise genuine concerns, and were ignored.

I started this post, by detailing very clearly, a game inbalance. And you ignore it? Brush over it?

That is not to you specifically, it is to many of those involved in the witch hunt.

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC, but rather about what third-party clients can do and what the official ones can't. Whether you agree or disagree, the devs have indicated the level of automation they are willing to tolerate. Your "legal" choices are currently CC, EC, and Web CUO. Each has their problems.

Cookie · December 14

ForeverFun said:

From a timeframe perspective,

I'd liken the classic client to Windows 98.
The enhanced client to Windows 7.

These systems have large internal differences, you can read about them online.

Good luck "porting" everything from Windows 7 to Windows 98. Native 64bit and large memory support? I can't imagine that happening for Windows 98. Same concept is probably true if you think about CC v. EC.

Just things like the mini map difference, where you can see all your party members and locations update in near real-time on the map, etc etc etc.

Look at all the QoL changes posted for EC. How often do we see those posted for CC? How long would it take to get the EC manifestation boss QoL change (link) into a CC mini map?

The rational move is probably to bring the graphics from CC over to EC, at the native EC resolution, as an option. Broadsword could keep CC internal until whatever internal tools they have that depend on it get moved over. Then phase out the existing CC.

This is what I was told for so long.
The problem is, the Other client busts this myth.
It is out there, it is the improvement so many players want.

KroDuK · December 14

Cookie said:

I have always maintained, from Day 1 - the original CHEAT CLIENT was in fact the Enhanced Client.

EasyUO.. the legit were using UOA

EasyUO.. u could do any kind of script.. like u could make a script that would log in every 6 hours and collect bods automaticly.. u could bypass the game limitation and instant vape bones from neira.. These scums were hiding.. unlike u.. flexing on legit user.

Something sure.. the dev shouldn't listen to you, instead they should understand you.

Btw the speech CC gonna cry against an EC in PvP.. is pure madness.

Rhel said:
If there was a script that could do that, I bet there are scripts that can determine an enemies health, and then cast spells based on the % left..

The very first PvP action when I reinstall was like in ~August on an IDOC.. I wanted the spot (was a castle size no neighboor)

After the first ~2 bouts.. I equip my Kryss to test something my ennemies was hella strong, very SUS.. I engage with an Armor Ignore.. that dude AUTO potted like it was INSTANT.. I was like WTF!! and I did a post: https://forum.uo.com/discussion/14618/pvp-in-2024#latest

Wich Cookie came to troll me telling me PvP is an artform.. u'll learn how to PvP someday.
It was clearly an auto chicken heal system.. someone receive a lot of dmg one shot? Let's auto drink that potion.. even if it was a dumb engage and we can steam roll that kid.. pathetic stuff.

Cookie said:
So simple scripts are ok?

If u can make them on official clients.. yes!
Just look at UO Assist.. it can do over the top macro.. I always had issue with the dismount one.. but this is legal so.. Who am I to judge? right?

Cookie · December 14

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script ability vs CC non Script ability.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

Cookie said:

Rhel said:

I posted 2 scripts, and you are not bothered by one, because it is simple.

That is how all scripts start.

So simple scripts are ok?

I'm not bothered by one because it is simple and per the laws of BS, legal within their realm of control. The other is only available in a hacked version of the client, and completely automates play.

The enhanced client has also been out since 2009. I imagine if the simple scripts were going to go crazy, they'd already have done so?

I have explained many times, no-one plays Enhanced Client, no-one likes it, no-one can be bothered to go to the effort.

Now, they are sort of being forced into Enhanced, it could change.

Again, I'd like to see data on the numbers of people who play EC vs CC.

I have used EC since 2009, and use it exclusively today. The functionality is way too good, and although I enjoyed the CC graphics in '97 when I started playing, I find them a complete eyesore today.

The webclient actually has some functionality that the EC doesn't include, like auto open doors and auto open ccorpses.

I'd like to see the clients updated and additions added. I just don't agree with your comparison of scripts. It comes of as claiming a dripping facet(EC) is the same as the Niagra falls.

Cookie · December 14

KroDuK said:

Cookie said:

I have always maintained, from Day 1 - the original CHEAT CLIENT was in fact the Enhanced Client.

EasyUO.. the legit were using UOA

EasyUO.. u could do any kind of script.. like u could make a script that would log in every 6 hours and collect bods automaticly.. u could bypass the game limitation and instant vape bones from neira.. These scums were hiding.. unlike u.. flexing on legit user.

Something sure.. the dev shouldn't listen to you, instead they should understand you.

Even EUO was only used, as a method to balance CC with EC speed.
This is the point, ALL the players were ever trying to do, was balance the uneven playing field the Devs built in with the clients.

loop · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script vs CC non Script.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

You drew a comparison between what you can do in EC Lua vs. what you can do in JavaScript with another client. However, the context of the other client is that it permits extensive automation.

I used to think conversations about the clients were in good faith, but ever since Broadsword authorized Web CUO, which gives players the FPS, containers, and 2D art that they wanted, I'm not so sure.

There is a feature gap between EC and CC, which is by design. You can use the EC if you want. The trade off is that it's buggy and ugly.

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

KroDuK said:

Cookie said:

I have always maintained, from Day 1 - the original CHEAT CLIENT was in fact the Enhanced Client.

EasyUO.. the legit were using UOA

EasyUO.. u could do any kind of script.. like u could make a script that would log in every 6 hours and collect bods automaticly.. u could bypass the game limitation and instant vape bones from neira.. These scums were hiding.. unlike u.. flexing on legit user.

Something sure.. the dev shouldn't listen to you, instead they should understand you.

Even EUO was only used, as a method to balance CC with EC speed.
This is the point, ALL the players were ever trying to do, was balance the uneven playing field the Devs built in with the clients.

Pushing a button that actually automates and selects spells your character will cast based on the state of your target is not leveling the playing field.

And as you mentioned, that was just a simple scripts from the illegal client.

Honestly don't even know how people can call that playing. There's no challenge, it just let's the program do everything for you.

Cookie · December 14

loop said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script vs CC non Script.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

You drew a comparison between what you can do in EC Lua vs. what you can do in JavaScript with another client. However, the context of the other client is that it permits extensive automation.

I used to think conversations about the clients were in good faith, but ever since Broadsword authorized Web CUO, which gives players the FPS, containers, and 2D art that they wanted, I'm not so sure.

There is a feature gap between EC and CC, which is by design. You can use the EC if you want. The trade off is that it's buggy and ugly.

But the WebCUO still does not allow so much useful functionality. Again - I have personally requested a specific PvP Options Tab for PvPers - I even gave you the very clear examples in a previous post. It is great it fixes 2 major issues, it does not go far enough, and they are restricted in going far enough - I have requested the Devs move the bar.

And yes, I have always admitted, I like to script, I like to customise, I can fill in the gaps in the game myself where it has flaws, that is the main point of all of this.

The endgame, for players who have achieved everything, is customisation.
As shown with the Rogue example I gave in another post. Is that cheating?
Instead of the Detect Hidden message appearing in the bottom left of the screen and giving me a crick in my neck, I used a script to put it in Red, in the centre of my screen.
I then made a post, and said to the Devs, this would be a real Quality of Life improvement in the game. It took me 10 minutes to script it in - I am sure they could do it fairly easily.
Is that cheating, or Quality of Life? It was actually to help my own personal health.
And MANY customisations are in fact about maintaining health of a player - for example, less clicking, the volume of clicking in Classic, can genuinely give RSI - it has to be in everyones interests, to reduce volume of Clicking.

Current situation in a nutshell.

A. Heal friendly automatically with script in EC - Is ok, not cheating.
B. Heal friendly automatically in CC - not possible.
C. Heal Friendly automatically with script in CC graphic client - is Illegal.

Can you see how INCONSISTENT those scenarios are?
Each 3 of those statements is absolute fact.

Rhel · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script vs CC non Script.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

You drew a comparison between what you can do in EC Lua vs. what you can do in JavaScript with another client. However, the context of the other client is that it permits extensive automation.

I used to think conversations about the clients were in good faith, but ever since Broadsword authorized Web CUO, which gives players the FPS, containers, and 2D art that they wanted, I'm not so sure.

There is a feature gap between EC and CC, which is by design. You can use the EC if you want. The trade off is that it's buggy and ugly.

But the WebCUO still does not allow so much useful functionality. Again - I have personally requested a specific PvP Options Tab for PvPers - I even gave you the very clear examples in a previous post. It is great it fixes 2 major issues, it does not go far enough, and they are restricted in going far enough - I have requested the Devs move the bar.

And yes, I have always admitted, I like to script, I like to customise, I can fill in the gaps in the game myself where it has flaws, that is the main point of all of this.

The endgame, for players who have achieved everything, is customisation.
As shown with the Rogue example I gave in another post. Is that cheating?
Instead of the Detect Hidden message appearing in the bottom left of the screen and giving me a crick in my neck, I used a script to put it in Red, in the centre of my screen.
I then made a post, and said to the Devs, this would be a real Quality of Life improvement in the game. It took me 10 minutes to script it in - I am sure they could do it fairly easily.
Is that cheating, or Quality of Life? It was actually to help my own personal health.
And MANY customisations are in fact about maintaining health of a player - for example, less clicking, the volume of clicking in Classic, can genuinely give RSI - it has to be in everyones interests, to reduce volume of Clicking.

Current situation in a nutshell.

A. Heal friendly automatically with script in EC - Is ok, not cheating.
B. Heal friendly automatically in CC - not possible.
C. Heal Friendly automatically with script in CC graphic client - is Illegal.

Can you see how INCONSISTENT those scenarios are?
Each 3 of those statements is absolute fact.

Don't misrepresent the EC script. That script doesn't do any automated healing.

It only targets an injured friendly. Additional input has to be made by the player for any additional action such as to greater heal, heal or cure.

While the illegal client, at the push of one button, will target and injured friendly, determine if they're poisoned and cast cure, determine their health level and then determine if it should automatically cast heal (quick low health heal or minimal damage) vs greater heal.

These are no where near the same level of scripting.

Cookie · December 14

Rhel said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script vs CC non Script.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

You drew a comparison between what you can do in EC Lua vs. what you can do in JavaScript with another client. However, the context of the other client is that it permits extensive automation.

I used to think conversations about the clients were in good faith, but ever since Broadsword authorized Web CUO, which gives players the FPS, containers, and 2D art that they wanted, I'm not so sure.

There is a feature gap between EC and CC, which is by design. You can use the EC if you want. The trade off is that it's buggy and ugly.

But the WebCUO still does not allow so much useful functionality. Again - I have personally requested a specific PvP Options Tab for PvPers - I even gave you the very clear examples in a previous post. It is great it fixes 2 major issues, it does not go far enough, and they are restricted in going far enough - I have requested the Devs move the bar.

And yes, I have always admitted, I like to script, I like to customise, I can fill in the gaps in the game myself where it has flaws, that is the main point of all of this.

The endgame, for players who have achieved everything, is customisation.
As shown with the Rogue example I gave in another post. Is that cheating?
Instead of the Detect Hidden message appearing in the bottom left of the screen and giving me a crick in my neck, I used a script to put it in Red, in the centre of my screen.
I then made a post, and said to the Devs, this would be a real Quality of Life improvement in the game. It took me 10 minutes to script it in - I am sure they could do it fairly easily.
Is that cheating, or Quality of Life? It was actually to help my own personal health.
And MANY customisations are in fact about maintaining health of a player - for example, less clicking, the volume of clicking in Classic, can genuinely give RSI - it has to be in everyones interests, to reduce volume of Clicking.

Current situation in a nutshell.

A. Heal friendly automatically with script in EC - Is ok, not cheating.
B. Heal friendly automatically in CC - not possible.
C. Heal Friendly automatically with script in CC graphic client - is Illegal.

Can you see how INCONSISTENT those scenarios are?
Each 3 of those statements is absolute fact.

Don't misrepresent the EC script. That script doesn't do any automated healing.

It only targets an injured friendly. Additional input has to be made by the player for any additional action such as to greater heal, heal or cure.

Thank you for the minor adjustment in my terminology.

Now deal with the inconsistency, rather than brushing over it all the time.

You sound very defensive.

loop · December 14

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

loop said:

Cookie said:

Hi Cookie,

No judgment from me. I just don't think this thread is really about EC vs. CC,

It is directly about what EC vs CC can do.

I gave a direct example. Purely EC Script vs CC non Script.

This is what led to all future (now past) issues.

I have heard, they are planning to upgrade CC, that is fantastic, why would you cut short CC players right now though, before they have a proper option?

You drew a comparison between what you can do in EC Lua vs. what you can do in JavaScript with another client. However, the context of the other client is that it permits extensive automation.

I used to think conversations about the clients were in good faith, but ever since Broadsword authorized Web CUO, which gives players the FPS, containers, and 2D art that they wanted, I'm not so sure.

There is a feature gap between EC and CC, which is by design. You can use the EC if you want. The trade off is that it's buggy and ugly.

But the WebCUO still does not allow so much useful functionality. Again - I have personally requested a specific PvP Options Tab for PvPers - I even gave you the very clear examples in a previous post. It is great it fixes 2 major issues, it does not go far enough, and they are restricted in going far enough - I have requested the Devs move the bar.

And yes, I have always admitted, I like to script, I like to customise, I can fill in the gaps in the game myself where it has flaws, that is the main point of all of this.

The endgame, for players who have achieved everything, is customisation.
As shown with the Rogue example I gave in another post. Is that cheating?
Instead of the Detect Hidden message appearing in the bottom left of the screen and giving me a crick in my neck, I used a script to put it in Red, in the centre of my screen.
I then made a post, and said to the Devs, this would be a real Quality of Life improvement in the game. It took me 10 minutes to script it in - I am sure they could do it fairly easily.
Is that cheating, or Quality of Life? It was actually to help my own personal health.
And MANY customisations are in fact about maintaining health of a player - for example, less clicking, the volume of clicking in Classic, can genuinely give RSI - it has to be in everyones interests, to reduce volume of Clicking.

Current situation in a nutshell.

A. Heal friendly automatically with script in EC - Is ok, not cheating.
B. Heal friendly automatically in CC - not possible.
C. Heal Friendly automatically with script in CC graphic client - is Illegal.

Can you see how INCONSISTENT those scenarios are?
Each 3 of those statements is absolute fact.

Restricting the ability to interact with the game in ways that are undesirable is fundamental to creating a baseline experience. If all players are permitted to play within the same restrictions, the playing field is more level. You might even find it more fun.

There is nothing stopping you from playing with the EC if you feel it has features that are desirable. I don't know that it's reasonable to expect older technology to have the features of newer technology, but as a half-measure you have the CUO web client.

Restricting the clients to ones they are willing to support may better equip the team to develop permissible QoL improvements to either clients, so you should continue to offer feedback. However, you will not be able to automate the game.

Cookie · December 14

loop said:

I don't know that it's reasonable to expect older technology to have the features of newer technology, but as a half-measure you have the CUO web client.

We already know it exists.

Why is everyone STILL pretending it does not, or cannot be done?
You did that to me for 15 years.

Even the CUO has these features, and they have been blocked.

An example for you, I rarely play in Trammel, I went there for an hour last night, I did Yew event for 1 hour. You know what killed it for me, the Tree foliage, so many tree's in Yew, I could not see a single thing?
That is genuine, you may laugh, you may all find that ok - I did not.

I really like to actually see in a game I am playing.

Tree foliage is lovely, but allow an option to toggle it on, or off - that really is a simple thing to do, that would make so many players happy. It isn't just me who thinks like this, you must have all seen billions of screenshots where they remove Tree's to be able to see to play the game.

You can give me Immersion all day long, but some players just want to be able to see.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Enhanced Client vs Classic.

Comments