Without the influences of Trammel: A Discussion about Risk within UO:R

I think we ought to bring back pet stat loss now, if your the victim of a DDOS attack, that sucks, but other people loose stuff too. I'm in favor of making pet skill loss higher like 15-20%. Your pets aren't losing stats, just skill points. As a long time tamer here, I think tamers have gotten to much trammel treatment.

How did this become an argument about provo vs peace? You said a peace dexxer could kill a shadow wyrm, I said I disagree, and now you're talking about provo? I'm just going to leave it at this since you seem to be talking in circles

Im a bit skeptical as to the quality of your points considering the above comparisons you continue to make.

You could triple box balrons with dexers if you had three exorcism weapons.
The catch is that the risk is too great, people won't be willing to do that.

The payout is also relatively small since no one else brings the power to the table that tamers do.

I see most of the problems posed by triple boxing as unsolvable, though. People will not be willing to give up their extra accounts, and telamon would be unwilling to implement changes like this anyway. This isn't changing. The problem I'm a little concerned about is the server becoming a hellscape where the majority of people are triple boxed tamers, which will be due to an intersection of several factors.

It's kind of like a tripod. Without one of its three legs, it wouldn't be able to stand.

Additionally, I think that because triple boxing is an area that cannot be changed, there is only one change needed. As I suggested earlier in the thread, decrease the relative power of firebreath, increase the relative impact of a pet's stats, and bring back statloss. Tamers have their risk and people won't be able to recklessly triple box because their pets will be much less valuable if people are carelessly getting them kill everywhere.

napo, you could probably triple-box balrons with GM weapons on dexxers if you were good enough at your cross-heal macros and potentially pot chugging.
If you make a high AR tank char and make sure he gets the aggro while the other two spam bandages, only pausing if applying, I bet this would actually be easy. However, still totally lame.

Hi, I wanted to contribute to this discussion:

It is not era accurate, but it worked this way in the early years and I feel that OSI was wrong to later do otherwise: The death of a tamed pet is permanent and you must go tame a new dragon in Destard and face the perils of PKs there. That is the only solution I feel is appropriate.

I understand unworkability and the "things given, once taken away breed discontent" view. I understand that. But this is my view on how taming should work to put it in line with the risk of loss that UO should represent.

How do you bring a meaningful penalty to bards and mages, then?

Mages and bards already lose their equipment upon death.

So do tamers.

Pets are a tamer's equipment. They are protected from loss. I disagree with this statement.

In any case I had a long discussion with Chris regarding the issue and he conceded the argument. Chris was unwilling to say this publicly though.

But their equipment loss, in terms of monetary value, isn't anywhere near dexers or this proposed penalty for tamers.

I have to say that nothing completes the UO experience more than going out into the world and saying, "I'd really hate to lose this."

Yea, that's fine. My point is people are jumping up and down on tamers (and rightly so), but are failing to recognize that mages and bards have a laughable death penalty as well.

Mages and bards don't have 800 fucking HP a piece. They can't stand there getting slapped by a boss mob while spinning a 4s bandage macro and rolling a joint. They actually have to call a tamer more often than not, if they don't want to spend 20 minutes killing a boss mob.

That 800HP tank you're toting around, is your most powerful asset and also completely devoid of tangible risk of loss. Retraining is not significantly comparable loss in relation to the power of the thing.

We're not getting restricted to fewer than three accounts, ever. We're not getting reduced bonding capacity, ever. We're not getting reduced control slots either. Let's stop talking about shit that got added after launch because you know damn well the chance of change is practically nonexistent because losing players is not in the shard's best interests.

We need to have mechanisms that make it too risky to manage three accounts in active combat, ever. If it's just too tedious to run three, no one will. So add some annoying little spawn and other tricky things that make people realize "I need to focus on one account so I don't get screwed by the risks". As of now, the fact that you CAN triple-box anything, means there is not enough risk involved in that.

I can't speak to perceived value. I can speak to the concept of "Without the influences of Trammel" and I daresay the protections for a tamer's equipment break from that concept.

I have to add that it boggles the mind that a pet stays bonded when transferred.

Basically this. Although I will add, 800 HP multiplied by four and four 50+% of health Fireblast attacks that instakill most single humans. No other template, by itself, can bring even close to this to the table. Tamers can, so they should probably risk something in the process.

Now, they should still be able to Res their pets with Veterinary, but they shouldn't be able to teleport their pet's corpse to safety, and do that ressing in town/house. They should be forced to gear up and go right back into danger if they want that particular pet back. And if there are griefing, res killing PKs there who are preventing this from occurring, then welcome to UO.

edit: I mean to say that pet's corpse should decay and then disappear forever; irretrievably lost (although we can argue on the timing).

edit: also this:

edit: also, while we are on the subject, I would agree to spellbooks no longer being blessed in exchange for pet death. That would be a totally fair price to pay and also help move the economy by introducing a new "must have" player craftable. Also, the loss of spellbooks was a thing in prior years. That too was changed in the early moves toward trammel.

Losing spellbooks, in theory would boost player interaction and the economy, incorrect. It would lead right back to the triple accounts with all of us having one inscription character full time macroing spellbooks while we play the other two accounts, no player interaction required. no economy interaction required.

@Plankton, I dont think pets do stay bonded when transferred..atleast they never have for me so it's either a bug or that statement is false.

I could be wrong. Though, this was advertised in a recent sale of bonded pets. I would appreciate a correction if necessary.

You have a mage without GM inscription? Noob. Yes I am fully aware that the effort required to do this would be minimal. The point is that "the effort would be required".

I don't care about player interaction to inscribe my spells. I care that I would need to jump through a hoop to get back to casting flamestrike. Even if I had to jump through that hoop before I died.